I assumed it was us at first doh.
When you read the PL statement about Everton’s non cooperation, and compare the IC statement, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with the PL investigation board.
The nagging worry I’ve had since the 115 was announced is the difficulty in imagining the PL is incompetent and would issue without pretty substantial evidence to justify proceeding, and presumably taking legal advice first.
The more I read about it, and seeing what a farce PSR is becoming, and seeing the utter disdain the IC had for the PL view on non-cooperation, the more I’m inclined to the view that the PL is incompetent.
I re-read the “merits” judgement after City were defeated in the commercial court.
I think that City were trying to block a pure fishing expedition by the PL panel, but could only have the issue independently tested by a tribunal not linked to the PL. City were legitimately concerned about the PL panel being allowed to make sweeping requests for documents without specifying why they required such documents - a fishing expedition. So rather than obstructing or delaying the PL process, City were exercising what legal rights they had to challenge it. Although City lost on that occasion concern was expressed about the length of time of the PL investigation had already taken and no judicial opinion was expressed as to whether City’s application was, in effect, a delaying tactic. So even on the non-cooperation charges, provided City have since cooperated then for City to be punished for non-cooperation would require the I.C. to deem City’s application to the commercial court to have been an unjustified delaying tactic.
I’ve rambled on a bit and all this is my interpretation which may be incorrect and there may be more to it but overall it’s as likely as not the PL hierarchy did not and do not know what they are doing
