PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

NoFullNameThisTime. said:
Does anyone know what we will do if we are found guilty? Can we go to an actual court or something.

I don't believe this independent commission is going to be independent at all.

Few months ago i was massively confident but last few weeks i get the feeling we will be found guilty purely off public pressure.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, the four independent panels that considered the Everton and Forest cases (and their appeals) were all chaired by judges or KCs and the remaining members were all judges, KCs, CAs and lawyers of various ilks.

There shouldn't really be any cause for concern on grounds of independence or undue influence.

The PL will be feeling the pressure you mentioned, though, hence Masters saying nothing at all very loudly this week. But rest easy. The case will be decided on the evidence presented by the PL and the counter-evidence presented by the club. My money, for many reasons on the most substantive allegations, is on the club.

However, to answer your question specifically: the panel's decision can be appealed to another three-man panel chosen by Rosen, then there are limited opportunities to take the case to arbitration and, finally, very limited opportunities (to the extent that it would be virtually impossible*) to go to a "real court". Hope that helps.


* On the other hand, a HHGTTG quote: "Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning in this way: "If such a machine is a virtual impossibility, it must have finite improbability. So all I have to do, in order to make one, is to work out how exactly improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea... and turn it on!""

In this case, the finite improbability generator is a highly skilled and very expensive team of legal advisors who are grappling with the very problem of appeals, I would imagine. The tea is probably the same.

:)
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
The question is:

Is he really that pitifully informed/delusional/incompetant for something he spends so much time and effort convincing everyone he's an expert on?

Or

Is it more that he thinks most people are idiots and will believe anything he tells them, if he sells it hard enough?
Click to expand...
Neither. Many people will only read what they want to hear. Just part of the smear campaign against City. Clear and organised.
 
halfcenturyup said:
If it makes you feel any better, the four independent panels that considered the Everton and Forest cases (and their appeals) were all chaired by judges or KCs and the remaining members were all judges, KCs, CAs and lawyers of various ilks.

There shouldn't really be any cause for concern on grounds of independence or undue influence.

The PL will be feeling the pressure you mentioned, though, hence Masters saying nothing at all very loudly this week. But rest easy. The case will be decided on the evidence presented by the PL and the counter-evidence presented by the club. My money, for many reasons on the most substantive allegations, is on the club.

However, to answer your question specifically: the panel's decision can be appealed to another three-man panel chosen by Rosen, then there are limited opportunities to take the case to arbitration and, finally, very limited opportunities (to the extent that it would be virtually impossible*) to go to a "real court". Hope that helps.


* On the other hand, a HHGTTG quote: "Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep up after a particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning in this way: "If such a machine is a virtual impossibility, it must have finite improbability. So all I have to do, in order to make one, is to work out how exactly improbable it is, feed that figure into the finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of really hot tea... and turn it on!""

In this case, the finite improbability generator is a highly skilled and very expensive team of legal advisors who are grappling with the very problem of appeals, I would imagine. The tea is probably the same.

:)
Click to expand...
I suppose we are the jammy dodgers.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Agree with you on keeping up to date with what is on Twitter, even if it may negatively affect the more sensitive souls on here.

But it's a conundrum isn't it? These guys (and you know who I mean) are clearly intelligent. They can write well, but can't seem to get it right. Just right enough to convince people less intelligent than they are that what they want to believe is the truth. It's pretty obvious they have found a way to generate income from this nonsense and I doubt they believe any of it themselves.

I will be so relieved when FFP/PSR is finished in it's controversial form and all these "experts" disappear never to be seen again.
Click to expand...
said it before and i will say it again social media is a vacuum where the person who shouts the loudest and tells people what they want to hear is lauded, it is the misinformed preaching to the brainless never has a place so suited the term in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.