The document was always likely to get leaked. We are at loggerheads with the Prem who are shady fookers. A PR specialist should have checked the wording of the document for own goals, regardless of who wrote the paper. Be prepared for the worst.I am serious. A) it wasn't a public comment, it was in a confidential submission to an arbitrator. B) Nobody knows the comtext, it is a catchy phrase easy for the media to run away with. C)It is not the club that used it, presumably, it was the lawyers.
The document was always likely to get leaked. We are at loggerheads with the Prem who are shady fookers. A PR specialist should have checked the wording of the document for own goals, regardless of who wrote the paper. Be prepared for the worst.
I would invoke the “Liar Liar pants on Fire Act of 2008.”The Times Online are leading with another 'Exclusive' (leak) regarding tomorrow's hearing.
Apparently the first hour will be taken up with legal argument about how the case will be decided.
The Premier league want to use the one potato two potato system whereas City lawyers are insistent on Rock Paper Scissors.
They wouldn’t be correcting an argument. Just suggesting a less contentious form of wording that wouldn’t make us look so bad if / once the document was leaked. Wouldn’t really need to be a PR specialist. Just anyone with awareness of the slimy Prem. Anyway the lesson will now have been learnt.Would love to see how a well paid top lawyer would respond to a PR specialist correcting his arguments, in case simon jordan tweets something poncey about it.
But happy to leave it there pal, I have said what I had to say. Cheers.
As has been mentioned the words were written in a legal submission presented by our legal team. There is no context to the words used and to argue that a legal submission needs to be put through a PR company in order for the wording to be checked as the submission will be leaked by the PL is a nonsenseThey wouldn’t be correcting an argument. Just suggesting a less contentious form of wording that wouldn’t make us look so bad if / once the document was leaked. Wouldn’t really need to be a PR specialist. Just anyone with awareness of the slimy Prem. Anyway the lesson will now have been learnt.
It’s very rare I agree with Talkshite but the argument was pretty irrelevant and counter productive. It would make more sense if we were arguing that the Prem didn’t get 14 votes but I guess they didn’t need to.
Have to disagree, we shouldn't be tailoring the serious submissions in our defence to cater for the thick twats that pollute social media.The document was always likely to get leaked. We are at loggerheads with the Prem who are shady fookers. A PR specialist should have checked the wording of the document for own goals, regardless of who wrote the paper. Be prepared for the worst.
I was having a senior moment.I thought we needed 14 to change a rule?
Yes that’s nonsense because I haven’t said the document needs to be put through PR company. There’s no context where this wording looks good once leaked to the media. No doubt the lawyers thought the Prem would be more responsible with the document.As has been mentioned the words were written in a legal submission presented by our legal team. There is no context to the words used and to argue that a legal submission needs to be put through a PR company in order for the wording to be checked as the submission will be leaked by the PL is a nonsense
I welcome a difference of opinion. I’ve been in a situation where an entice document I’ve written was leaked to the national press. Once bitten.Have to disagree, we shouldn't be tailoring the serious submissions in our defence to cater for the thick twats that pollute social media.
Waffling...The document was always likely to get leaked. We are at loggerheads with the Prem who are shady fookers. A PR specialist should have checked the wording of the document for own goals, regardless of who wrote the paper. Be prepared for the worst.