Yes it wouldMy point is the real world doesn’t work like that but the legal profession does. In virtually any other profession it would be deemed unacceptable and I see no reason why the legal profession is exempt from criticism just because that's the way it has always been done. So would it be acceptable if we are all sat here in 6 or 12 months time still living in an information vacuum (hopefully extreme example)
I get that it is complicated. I get that there is a plethora of documentation to be reviewed. I get that the panel want to get it right and be thorough. What I don’t get, is how this can all be done without even giving the key stakeholders (Premier League and City) a view on when this will come to a conclusion.
Back in the day when I was an IT Project Manager I never dreamt of estimating project timelines and duration on a ’it will be done when it's done and it will cost you what I bill you basis.’ If only that had been an option.
On each count, the verdict must be clear: a finding for the league or complaint not proven. They will give their reasons but in the unlikely event of any argument or interpretation that will be apart from the finding, effectively obiter dicta. No dissenting opinion will be given. They won’t want to open the slim window on an appeal.The words written will need to leave no element of doubt as to guilt or exoneration. Can that even be done? I don’t think so, instead we will get a lengthy judgement that can be interpreted both positively and negatively.
Would that be Masters appearing in the shower and the 115 case was just a dreamSurely that would be a JR rather than an appeal?
Who says they are billed on that basis?
Lots of services operate on that 'it will take as ling as it takes' basis.
This should be good for a few molly pages :)That sounds a bit fishy to me ……
a red herring surelyThey continue to skate around the issue.
There must be a catch.