PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here, but for someone who repeatedly says we're bang to rights and definitely will be found guilty, you then saying he breaks it down well and you're impressed by what they had to say - are you a bit more persuaded by the arguments of MH than you once were? Has your thoughts on the likelihood of the outcome changed?

I know you've explicitly said they're far too confident of the outcome and naive on certain points, but it's the highest I've seen you "praise" him.

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

 

[slbsn]

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here, but for someone who repeatedly says we're bang to rights and definitely will be found guilty, you then saying he breaks it down well and you're impressed by what they had to say - are you a bit more persuaded by the arguments of MH than you once were? Has your thoughts on the likelihood of the outcome changed?

I know you've explicitly said they're far too confident of the outcome and naive on certain points, but it's the highest I've seen you "praise" him.

Nothing has changed from my side.

So he summarises well from a completely one sided standpoint. In litigation you often receive correspondence or written submissions that paint a completely one sided reading of the evidence. To a reader who doesn’t know what happened such documents sound convincing. Then the other side do the same and they also sounds completely convincing. I’m merely saying he articulated the case against City reasonably well (with some major caveats).

 

[slbsn]

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

Explained better than me!

 

[mancboy]

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

Basically what magic/twat/harris has done has used what is freely available for their own confirmation bias, they want a certain outcome and narrative so have used what is out there to support that narrative while conveniently ignoring what is also out there to support the opposing narrative, that is the problem with this case as a whole it has removed the ability of people viewing it to employ critical thinking, the pl have made it to emotive.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Basically what magic/twat/harris has done has used what is freely available for their own confirmation bias, they want a certain outcome and narrative so have used what is out there to support that narrative while conveniently ignoring what is also out there to support the opposing narrative, that is the problem with this case as a whole it has removed the ability of people viewing it to employ critical thinking, the pl have made it to emotive.

And why wouldn’t one take that view, when they only see one side of the argument from the media. Anybody pushing against said narrative will be weighed down in bile on the likes of X, et al.

 

[mancboy]

And why wouldn’t one take that view, when they only see one side of the argument from the media. Anybody pushing against said narrative will be weighed down in bile on the likes of X, et al.

100% correct like i said it has removed the ability to rationally think about opposing views

 

[SilverFox2]

And why wouldn’t one take that view, when they only see one side of the argument from the media. Anybody pushing against said narrative will be weighed down in bile on the likes of X, et al.

In problem solving we usually start where we want to finish then choose routes that serve it's purpose.

Not sure if that applies to legal theory.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

Nothing has changed from my side.

So he summarises well from a completely one sided standpoint. In litigation you often receive correspondence or written submissions that paint a completely one sided reading of the evidence. To a reader who doesn’t know what happened such documents sound convincing. Then the other side do the same and they also sounds completely convincing. I’m merely saying he articulated the case against City reasonably well (with some major caveats).

Thank you both, that makes sense.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Yes it's impossible a whistleblower could turn up unannounced. This will have been run like a High Court trial, which would mean witness statements filed in advance - likely some months in advance.

Exchange of witness statements could have been the first City knew of it, if there was a whistleblower. Which would have been a nasty shock, for sure. It seems unlikely based on what has been briefed, but I guess we'll see.

Of all the public domain comments so far I think Alberto Galassi's is the most significant. But still not something to attach much weight to.

Everything in disclosure, as you rightly state.

I mean, it's quite ridiculous to think the Premier League would have held back a smoking gun which would save them £25m in legal fees, just to have their gotcha moment in court.

It would never have got to court.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Remember everybody, Tolmie who has his sources said that our execs were quietly confident having reviewed the evidence disclosed by the PL

Not quietly confident, supremely. To the point, it feels like they already know the result.