PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
I was referring to the commission, not the lawyers.

And actually the rule you quoted related specifically to an appeal, which given we haven't had a decision then we won't have appealed.
Click to expand...
Yes. The three Judges would certainly have formed some sort of view by the end of the hearing. Perhaps not their final view but a good idea of the broad issues. Deliberating and writing up their final decision is the longest part of the process. Like you I am surprised by the length of time it has taken. Whatever the decision the biggest risk to both parties is the subsequent catastrophic damage to reputation. Both sides will have prepared comprehensive comms strategies in the event of any outcome and the lawyers would have had input into these discussions. So there will certainly be background discussions happening based on likely outcomes in advance of any decision.
 
AshtonBlueMooner said:
And you are more than entitled to your opinion.
Others, me for example, don’t believe the length of time taken reflects negatively or positively.
It’s a process, a lengthy one, that can’t and won’t be rushed.
My opinion, based on the responses by my Club, the evidence as I understand it (granted, none of us know the full weight of either sides case) and the actions of the club before, during and after the hearing leave me feeling positive about the outcome.
Of course I could be spectacularly wrong but that’s not how I feel or how I think.
Psychology as well as facts / unknowns play into our thoughts and opinions. I’m a glass half full fella, but my opinion is based on instinct and the facts as I understand them.
CTID
Click to expand...
The time is what it is. There's a ton of complex, document intensive evidence here. Panel knows it is going to be under a ton a scrutiny however it rules and wants to get it right. Don't think the timing means anything.

Members of the panel might also be working on other matters in the midst of all this. Which would add to the time.
 
sput the wonder pig said:
Are we innocent or guilty then ?
Click to expand...

Who cares? The question is if the PL will be able to prove the allegations to the required standard. And the answer is - in my assessment - no. At least, not the substantive allegations and who cares about the rest?

This assessment doesn't change with how long it all takes, either, so I am still perfectly relaxed. It's taking this long either because it just takes this long to document a humiliation for the PL, or there is something going on in the background to limit the consequences to the PL of an impending humiliation. Either way works for me.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Who cares? The question is if the PL will be able to prove the allegations to the required standard. And the answer is - in my assessment - no. At least, not the substantive allegations and who cares about the rest?

This assessment doesn't change with how long it all takes, either, so I am still perfectly relaxed. It's taking this long either because it just takes this long to document a humiliation for the PL, or there is something going on in the background to limit the consequences to the PL of an impending humiliation. Either way works for me.
Click to expand...
Your continued and unwavering optimism is starting to make me nervous tbh
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Whatever the decision the biggest risk to both parties is the subsequent catastrophic damage to reputation.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why it may take a long time. The panel know that, given what is at stake here, their decision is going to be picked over in excruciating detail by some of the finest legal minds in the country (and I don't just mean the Bluemoon faithful). Therefore, there is no margin for error, the evidence has to be carefully considered (and seen to be carefully considered) and the decision has to be rigorously based on the evidence and the correct application of the rules. That involves a lot of checking and cross-checking and one of the reasons why the KCs get paid the big bucks is their ability to put aside their initial 'gut feel' and base a decision on sound legal argument and the evidence.

Add in the fact, as been noted elsewhere, that they are probably working on multiple cases at once and it begins to be more understandable that it has taken a long period of time.

Still bloody frustrating, though...
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Yes. The three Judges would certainly have formed some sort of view by the end of the hearing. Perhaps not their final view but a good idea of the broad issues. Deliberating and writing up their final decision is the longest part of the process. Like you I am surprised by the length of time it has taken. Whatever the decision the biggest risk to both parties is the subsequent catastrophic damage to reputation. Both sides will have prepared comprehensive comms strategies in the event of any outcome and the lawyers would have had input into these discussions. So there will certainly be background discussions happening based on likely outcomes in advance of any decision.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that but would the writing up procedures take any notice of the potential comms their verdict may provoke to either side.or would they simply give a legally sound verdict and shrug their shoulders?
 
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