PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

My Dad was at Ashton Grammar School with John Savident, AKA Fred, not friends though, think he was a batsman rather that a bowler (Fred not my Dad).
I saw him in Sainsbury's on Regent Road once. Fortunately he didn't have a knife wielding, psychopathic rent boy in tow....
 
As you say, there is no chance the hearing was divided by charges. It’s divided into openings, witness evidence and cross examination, experts and closings. If it’s running slightly short it will likely be because less time than expected was required for cross examination of certain witnesses or, potentially, the experts agreeing with each other.
As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
 
As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
Just one outcome:
“The PL were unable to show any cogent evidence that City broke any rules. We find for City in every case.”
 
The gross spend on Pannick I heard was so high I didn’t believe it but the source was high quality so not sure
There’s a huge amount at stake. At that level, if you want the best, in commercial terms, you’ll want to give yourself the best possible chance. So I get that. Totally.

Whatever it is, he’ll be worth it. Those guys, at the very top of the Bar, are on another level to the rest of the profession. Essentially the difference between KDB and Johnjo Shelvey.
 
There’s a huge amount at stake. At that level, if you want the best, in commercial terms, you’ll want to give yourself the best possible chance. So I get that. Totally.

Whatever it is, he’ll be worth it. Those guys, at the very top of the Bar, are on another level to the rest of the profession. Essentially the difference between KDB and Johnjo Shelvey.
Presumably Adam Lewis falls into the same category as Pannick though?
 
There’s a huge amount at stake. At that level, if you want the best, in commercial terms, you’ll want to give yourself the best possible chance. So I get that. Totally.

Whatever it is, he’ll be worth it. Those guys, at the very top of the Bar, are on another level to the rest of the profession. Essentially the difference between KDB and Johnjo Shelvey.
KDB doesn't arrive to work in a spaceship though
 

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.