give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 20,432
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I think this 115 is keeping some papers from going bust. Once we are cleared hopefully they then go bust, or start investigating the American cartel
I think we might have to wait until after the season is finished. Can you imagine the carnage if it drops mid-season. Maybe a time like the week beginning 3rd June, there will surely be a big impact, but the World Cup starts the following week and the majority of football fans will have something else to focus on for an extended period of time. It'll still be ringing in our ears by the time the new season starts but the noise level will be more manageable.There are 'more likely and less likely times' is quite different from 'they will choose and agree a time that is convenient'.
I am with SR on this one, think it will drop when it's ready, bar statutory holidays. Doubt they will wait for an international break if done, doubt they will rush to make one if not.
Obviously just my take, not a 'this I know' claim thst lots of others seem to have fwiw.
I should've inserted a smiley face and definitely wasn't having a go at you, so here's one for you now :)Not sure what your point is. I said in the first paragraph of my post that this will drop when it's ready, after a number of days for review by the parties. I am not trying to imply the panel are dragging their feet.
My point in the second paragraph that you quoted was that if I think it drops when it's ready I am hardly likely to think the panel will be taking sporting considerations into consideration in the timing. If they were that worried about sporting considerations then they would have expedited the process because the length of time it's taking is much more damaging to the sport and the reputations of the two parties than releasing the damn thing in an international break or not.
So my conclusion was that it drops when the panel finishes it and they won't give a single toss about sporting considerations. Is that clearer?
I suppose, possibly the two parties could co-ordinate a short delay in the publication date but I am struggling to imagine circumstances where both parties would want to delay, tbh. And we would hear some details about it during the delay in all probability, anyway.
I am of the firm opinion the panel are culpable. They reached their decision long ago (which is undoubtedly in our favour) and this absurd delay in its publication allows further unwarranted reputational damage to be inflicted on the club for no good reason.I should've inserted a smiley face and definitely wasn't having a go at you, so here's one for you now :)
I took the second sentence in your paragraph that i quoted as you suggesting they possibly weren't getting a move on and so i was simply saying we don't know whether they are or not, because nobody can state there is a delay when there is no actual proof that there is delay.
That's all, nothing more :)
I should've inserted a smiley face and definitely wasn't having a go at you, so here's one for you now :)
I took the second sentence in your paragraph that i quoted as you suggesting they possibly weren't getting a move on and so i was simply saying we don't know whether they are or not, because nobody can state there is a delay when there is no actual proof that there is delay.
That's all, nothing more :)
I agree that they reached their decision long ago but they can't just blurt it out one way or the other after deciding, can they, and then follow that up with, but you are going to have to wait ages for us to type it up before we give you the full details.I am of the firm opinion the panel are culpable. They reached their decision long ago (which is undoubtedly in our favour) and this absurd delay in its publication allows further unwarranted reputational damage to be inflicted on the club for no good reason.
our legals seem agreed that 11 months+ after the conclusion of the hearing is unprecedented for this type of deliberation.I agree that they reached their decision long ago but they can't just blurt it out one way or the other after deciding, can they, and then follow that up with, but you are going to have to wait ages for us to type it up before we give you the full details.
You use the word delay, but i again repeat, how can there be a delay if no timescale was given for publication of the result in the first place?
This so-called delay is nothing more than hearsay imho, mate.
Blaming eels.This is what happens when you try to conger up evidence of alleged financial malpractice from over 15 years ago.
Hopefully the former Definitely no chance of the latterI think this 115 is keeping some papers from going bust. Once we are cleared hopefully they then go bust, or start investigating the American cartel
But there has never been this type of deliberation before so they are simply guessing, aren't they, albeit educatedly, but nonetheless guesswork.our legals seem agreed that 11 months+ after the conclusion of the hearing is unprecedented for this type of deliberation.
But there has never been this type of deliberation before so they are simply guessing, aren't they, albeit educatedly, but nonetheless guesswork.
I stand by my claim that there is no factual proof of any delay, mate.
If someone can provide proof that there is a delay my drum will fall silent.
What would the panels reason be for delaying the decisions release?I am of the firm opinion the panel are culpable. They reached their decision long ago (which is undoubtedly in our favour) and this absurd delay in its publication allows further unwarranted reputational damage to be inflicted on the club for no good reason.
I strongly suspect they are being lobbied to delay by the PL to allow their key culprits to exit the stage and escape censure.What would the panels reason be for delaying the decisions release?
@slbsn , am I correct about this timeline.
Panel decision.
Any appeal submitted.
Panel decision.
Panel announces penalties.
Any appeal.
Final Panel decision.
Assuming some penalty for obstruction, if not penalty.-:)
6 months’ time.This isn't correct. There are more likely times and less likely times. It was never possible to be in the first 3-4 months. It was not possible in August. It is not possible in late December. It is more likely now than 6 months ago and less likely in 6 months time.
And to be clear, the timings I have discussed reflect the views of the parties and their senior lawyers as opposed to being made up or riffed.
I know you don't believe it but it is true.