PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Betterdeedthan red]

Win or lose we already lost . The damage to our reputation is written and no exoneration will re write it.
We now see on the pitch the reality of what this organised attempt to destroy our club in real time.

Well said.
Exactly what they wanted.
Stopped us in our tracks.
Just at a time when we could have genuinely dominated for years and years.
Damage is done now.
Guilty or not.
Which we all know were not

 

[bluemc]

Just a hunch but I think they’ll say we’re relegated. We’ll appeal and it drags on and on and fucking on!

That's the spirit! Can't beat a positive hunch on a Wednesday night.

 

[Shirley]

Just a hunch but I think they’ll say we’re relegated. We’ll appeal and it drags on and on and fucking on!

How did you get those scratches on your head Pep :-)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Tolmie tweeted on 1st November that he had heard unconfirmed reports the Tribunal was over.

That was obviously complete bollocks as we now hear final closing statements will be delivered nearer Xmas.

Still waiting for a decision whilst we are looking a huge rebuild is not good at all.

Any case from an advocate’s point of view is split into three basic elements. The opening, the evidence and the closing arguments, although sometimes the opening gets dispensed with if the tribunal demands it usually because they’ve read it comprehensively enough in advance and so don’t need the lay of the land explaining to them

So once the evidence is concluded, in a sense the tribunal is over because the matters which form the basis of the determination are settled and cannot be relitigated.

Closing arguments rarely change people’s minds, especially given the intellects, individually and collectively, of this tribunal.

So I wouldn’t say @tolmie's hairdoo was talking bollocks. What he said was definitely within the bounds of acceptability, as to all intents and purposes, once the evidence was concluded, the tribunal was done.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?

It’s all about the optics on this.
The notion that there actually are 115 separate charges would by sheer volume imply guilt.
The same perception would apply to the length of time to adjudicate.
Hyperbole and sheer exaggeration are powerful diversions.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Any case from an advocate’s point of view is split into three basic elements. The opening, the evidence and the closing arguments, although sometimes the opening gets dispensed with if the tribunal demands it usually because they’ve read it comprehensively enough in advance and so don’t need the lay of the land explaining to them

So once the evidence is concluded, in a sense the tribunal is over because the matters which form the basis of the determination are settled and cannot be relitigated.

Closing arguments rarely change people’s minds, especially given the intellects, individually and collectively, of this tribunal.

So I wouldn’t say @tolmie's hairdoo was talking bollocks. What he said was definitely within the bounds of acceptability, as to all intents and purposes, once the evidence was concluded, the tribunal was done.

That really wasn't what he was saying though. You wouldn't really say the hearing was over if an element (closing arguments) is still to be heard. The other part that is suspect in my view is that before November 1st the evidence element was done and dusted. What have they been doing for at least four weeks?

 

[Bald fraud]

That's the spirit! Can't beat a positive hunch on a Wednesday night.

I just want this shit show over mate. But do you honestly think this will be a straightforward victory for us up against these bent bastards!? I do think we’ll win in the end but I think they’ll have to show the cartel that they tried their best

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The other part that is suspect in my view is that before November 1st the evidence element was done and dusted. What have they been doing for at least four weeks?

There may be perfectly valid reasons for that. It isn’t unusual for there to be a hiatus between the conclusion of the evidence and closing arguments. Four weeks isn’t unheard of if diaries get in the way.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

There may be perfectly valid reasons for that. It isn’t unusual for there to be a hiatus between the conclusion of the evidence and closing arguments. Four weeks inset I heard of if diaries get in the way.

I'll defer to your specialist knowledge on that but it won't change my opinion of reports the hearing had finished weeks ago.

 

[1961_vintage]

So I wouldn’t say @tolmie's hairdoo was talking bollocks. What he said was definitely within the bounds of acceptability, as to all intents and purposes, once the evidence was concluded, the tribunal was done.