Question to Barristers, Lawyers, and Solicitors.
At the end of a hearing/case do you get a genuine gut feeling off how the hearing/case went from the evidence put forward by both sides?
The answer is not Yes.
The answer is not No.
The answer is not Yes And No.
The answer is not Maybe.
The correct answer is Sometimes.
I've deleted from the quoted post the second question, because the answer to that is not the same as the answer to the first.
The second question was
"Will our team genuinely know if they have won, lost, or if they aren't sure."
The answer to the second question is Perhaps.
My take on that would be, it has to be.I assume an abstention is not a vote
Is that a standard legal interpretation or is that the Premier League interpretation that the have always used? If it's the latter then that might be what City are arguing. If not In barking up the wrong tree and thank you for pointing it out.It is 2/3 of those that vote and abstentions are non votes.
On your first point, it's 8.23 mins into that video where Alex Phillips (formerly UEFA's head of governance and compliance who played a key role in drawing up the FFP rules) states:Thanks for below. Really interesting read and would be great if you can add the bit about the UEFA guy confirming all of this bullshit was designed to stop City from the beginning…. (Not that we didnt know that already, but have had many rags tell me im wearing a tinfoil hat over the years, when it comes to the cartel coming after us). So this debunks all of that noise.
One quick point, im sure i saw Stefan say the emails that are out there are not doctored/fake but dont have any context/follow up so are currently half a story at most. Appreciate this response was from a while ago but do you concur with Stefan on this point now??
Love this! Sums up the legal position perfectly!The answer is not Yes.
The answer is not No.
The answer is not Yes And No.
The answer is not Maybe.
The correct answer is Sometimes.
I've deleted from the quoted post the second question, because the answer to that is not the same as the answer to the first.
The second question was
"Will our team genuinely know if they have won, lost, or if they aren't sure."
The answer to the second question is Perhaps.
I've read up on this and understand it now. The rules and articles all say what ProjectDriver was saying.Is that a standard legal interpretation or is that the Premier League interpretation that the have always used? If it's the latter then that might be what City are arguing. If not In barking up the wrong tree and thank you for pointing it out.
Honestly think he gets a golden shower from st Jude every nightRio Ferdinand does that every time he sees Bellingham take a throw in.
You need 2/3 of the clubs to form a quorum, otherwise the meeting cannot go ahead. Ie at least 14 clubsIt is not 14 required. It is 2/3 and only subject to a quorate meeting
A quick peruse of his Twitter account suggests he's... an Arsenal fanOn your first point, it's 8.23 mins into that video where Alex Phillips (formerly UEFA's head of governance and compliance who played a key role in drawing up the FFP rules) states:
" the key part of it was the break even rule so that clubs could not spend more than they earn the concept was meant to ensure that people couldn't come in and simply buy success"
This directly contradicts what Michel Platini argued with the European Union when claiming the rules did not breach competition law.
On your second point. Yes I would agree with Stefan. Often what is not said/seen is just as important. It's only by looking at several related messages you can get an idea of context.