Lord Pannick to represent City / Pannick's OJ-style Summation

Jack Hackett said:
I really have no idea what you’re talking about and my response about facts referred to those being considered in the upcoming enquiry - in other words, did City break the rules or not? What think you?
Click to expand...


I trust my club and its owner. The rest of the hateful 8 and their mouth pieces can fuck right off. One thing is for sure, if City have done some accountancy slight of hand, £ to a pinch of shit the rest have too. I`d want nothing less than the whole Premier League pulling down around the hateful 8`s ears.
 
Jack Hackett said:
I really have no idea what you’re talking about and my response about facts referred to those being considered in the upcoming enquiry - in other words, did City break the rules or not? What think you?
Click to expand...
I think not. As we have been proven not to have back when CAS cleared us. You have no idea what I’m talking about? The letter written on YOUR letterhead begging for us to be banned before any facts had been presented. In true Wenger “I didn’t see it” fashion
 
Jack Hackett said:
I really have no idea what you’re talking about and my response about facts referred to those being considered in the upcoming enquiry - in other words, did City break the rules or not? What think you?
Click to expand...

That sounds all fine and rational, but it will not have escaped your notice, I hope, that in a disturbingly large section of the media and virtually all other sets of supporters (especially the two red clubs in the north west), there is a prior judgement of guilty on us. And that means that we're already being tarnished before the facts have even been established.
We in fact have a fine tradition in Anglo-American law of putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff or the prosecutor. Not the defendant. That is by no means the case in the world at large. That is not being respected here, and nobody's going to tell that that sheer weight of public bile and prior judgement will have no effect on the commission of enquiry.

The PL must feel they have a pretty good case. Although it is at least possible that this is as much a sideways manoeuvre, addressed as much to a government that is just about to bring out a White Paper about the running of the PL, as it is motivated by good faith and the will to do justice on a member club. My club must feel they have a pretty good case: they would not have put out the firm club statement they have done otherwise. This is a risky, potential zero sum game for both parties.
As for myself, I suspect I speak for the vast majority of supporters on here, and probably all, when I say that I was a City supporter when we were in the Third Division (renamed to spin it so that it sounds better by communications experts) and I will be a City supporter if we find ourselves in the National League North.
I would hope that all true Arsenal supporters would adopt the same position if Arsenal found themselves in the National League South. In fact, if they are true supporters, they won't even have to think about it.
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
That sounds all fine and rational, but it will not have escaped your notice, I hope, that in a disturbingly large section of the media and virtually all other sets of supporters (especially the two red clubs in the north west), there is a prior judgement of guilty on us. And that means that we're already being tarnished before the facts have even been established.
We in fact have a fine tradition in Anglo-American law of putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff or the prosecutor. Not the defendant. That is by no means the case in the world at large. That is not being respected here, and nobody's going to tell that that sheer weight of public bile and prior judgement will have no effect on the commission of enquiry.

The PL must feel they have a pretty good case. Although it is at least possible that this is as much a sideways manoeuvre, addressed as much to a government that is just about to bring out a White Paper about the running of the PL, as it is motivated by good faith and the will to do justice on a member club. My club must feel they have a pretty good case: they would not have put out the firm club statement they have done otherwise. This is a risky, potential zero sum game for both parties.
As for myself, I suspect I speak for the vast majority of supporters on here, and probably all, when I say that I was a City supporter when we were in the Third Division (renamed to spin it so that it sounds better by communications experts) and I will be a City supporter if we find ourselves in the National League North.
I would hope that all true Arsenal supporters would adopt the same position if Arsenal found themselves in the National League South. In fact, if they are true supporters, they won't even have to think about it.
Click to expand...

We’re talking about some of the most serious lawyers and financial experts in land on the commission.

In all seriousness they are not going to be swayed by what some twat in the Athletic, or idiots on Twitter say.
 
This guy is the dogs bollocks. If he doesn't clear us of this scurrilous accusations, then nobody will. But he'll smash the basrards out of the court and then we can focus on some serious retribution. CTIFD !!!!
 
jrb said:
I think it’s fair to say the PL will have better lawyers than UEFA did at CAS.

The PL will have noted and learnt from the UEFA lawyers shambles at CAS.

That’s not to say City’s lawyers at CAS didn’t do a very good job, aided by UEFA’s poor lawyers.
Click to expand...
@jrb the PL already employ a lawyer. He may be good I don't know but it has taken him 4 years to get this far. 4 years and he still gets the charges wrong. 4 years and he has to rush the announcement out.
He had one job in 4 years, convict City.
Pannick hasn't even started and he seems to be doing a better job than the PL guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top