PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keeper! said:
If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?
Click to expand...

Fact is no one outside of the parties involved knows anything about the strength of each respective case. It seems to be that regardless of the weight of either side’s arguments both parties feel compelled to see this through to the bitter end. In any event thelawyer.com says the case is paused until December while both parties prepare their closing arguments. I don’t know when the case was paused.
 
Keeper! said:
If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?
Click to expand...
The panel will consider carefully all the evidence given and all the cases made in the summing up. They can’t do that half heartedly. It will take time and every decision reached will be carefully written up. Fret not.
 
Last edited:
Just a hunch but I think they’ll say we’re relegated. We’ll appeal and it drags on and on and fucking on!
 
nellyonthewing said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Prophet of Doom said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Keeper! said:
If the verdict takes a long time would it not suggest that our "irrefutable evidence" may not be irrefutable?
Click to expand...
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.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
bluemc said:
That's the spirit! Can't beat a positive hunch on a Wednesday night.
Click to expand...
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
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll defer to your specialist knowledge on that but it won't change my opinion of reports the hearing had finished weeks ago.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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?
Click to expand...
tolmie posts in good faith what he hears on his grapevine.

mostly it is correct,
never is it "obviously complete bollocks".
 
All I’m saying is based on someone hearing things second or third hand, and the absence of, as you say, specialist knowledge, and what I’ve previously posted, it’s not an unwarranted conclusion for any lay person to arrive at.

The poster implied @tolmie's hairdoo was bullshitting, whereas it’s more likely to have been lost in translation imo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top