It obviously looked like a duck, but Herbert and his witnesses said that it didn't quack and, it seems, nobody from City's counsel said it was quacking like hell. Which makes me think there was benefit for the club to take that approach somewhere.
As always, we need to be patient and see how everything plays out in both these cases, I think, before we jump to conclusions.
We always seem to be a few steps ahead so I’m sure there’s a trap been set, no idea how.
I still go back to my point how anyone with such intelligence & integrity cannot see or hear the duck.
I can't help shaking the idea that it suited all parties tactically to just accept Herbert's evidence on that issue without any real discussion. The PL because it wasn't a particularly strong argument, the club because it didn't want to justify its historical sponsorship deals for RP nature and FMV as a claimant with the burden of proof on them (and because they "knew" they had won the unlawful argument on shareholder loans anyway) and the tribunal because it didn't want to tread on the toes of the 115 panel.
Would explain why everyone seems to have tip-toed around the subject.
As always, may all be bollocks, but makes sense to me and I think it "stands at least a good chance of resisting a sustained legal challenge".
I think the burden of proof for the claimant would be incredibly high, especially against witness evidence to the contrary.
It's the 115 case in reverse, I suppose.
Edit: Let me try that again. The proof would have to be particularly cogent to counter witness evidence when the burden of proof is on the claimant. Is that any better? Fucking accountants playing lawyer :)
This @halfcenturyup guy isn't a legal professional anyway. I wouldn't listen to a word he says on legal issues, he only picks up what he knows from those other guys. What a fraud.
I wonder if that’s dawned on Masters & the cartel.
Every week Masters survives is another weekly paycheque but I’d be surprised if he leaves with a bonus like Scudamore did.
It’s a huge evidential burden to discharge. Possibly slightly easier if it was the only argument we were pursuing. Unlawfulness and abuse of dominant position would have provided the path of less resistance.I think the burden of proof for the claimant would be incredibly high, especially against witness evidence to the contrary.
It's the 115 case in reverse, I suppose.
Edit: Let me try that again. The proof would have to be particularly cogent to counter witness evidence when the burden of proof is on the claimant. Is that any better? Fucking accountants playing lawyer :)
I hope that is the caseWe always seem to be a few steps ahead so I’m sure there’s a trap been set, no idea how.................
True, but the fact the verbal evidence was given such weighting over legitimately sourced & contextualised email evidence by the panel must have really pleased the members of city's counsel working on both cases.Portsmouth went into administration in early 2012. And we still don't have any rules about debt or shareholder loans in PSR. It's really hard to buy the argument that the amended rules had anything to do with Portsmouth therefore.
The PL seem to have had quite an easy ride over the issue of why they introduced the original APT rules when they did, so soon after the Newcastle takeover, while simultaneously claiming this was a reaction to something that happened nearly 10 years earlier. It's disappointing that neither our legal team, nor the tribunal members raised this.
Also why they seem to have prima facie accepted the explanation of the email sent from (let's hazard a guess) Daniel Levy referring to 'Gulf states' but where verbal evidence was given that this was effectively not specifically aimed at Gulf states but was just an example.
to suggest that the apt and psr rules had anything to do with stopping another portsmouth is the same as suggesting that you are going to stop boats sinking by decreasing the speed limit.Portsmouth went into administration in early 2012. And we still don't have any rules about debt or shareholder loans in PSR. It's really hard to buy the argument that the amended rules had anything to do with Portsmouth therefore.
The PL seem to have had quite an easy ride over the issue of why they introduced the original APT rules when they did, so soon after the Newcastle takeover, while simultaneously claiming this was a reaction to something that happened nearly 10 years earlier. It's disappointing that neither our legal team, nor the tribunal members raised this.
Also why they seem to have prima facie accepted the explanation of the email sent from (let's hazard a guess) Daniel Levy referring to 'Gulf states' but where verbal evidence was given that this was effectively not specifically aimed at Gulf states but was just an example.