halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,995
Which part of it explains why?
Tbf, I think we all understood why it would take a long time. Personally, I would suggest the time taken doesn't depend the outcome (unless the allegations were dismissed out of hand, which was never likely to happen): it's a highly sensitive and politicised case whichever way the judgment hangs: either accusing international politicians and businessmen of fraud or denying a group of clubs (those that pretty much run the PL) the right to claim tens or hundreds of millions in compensation. The judgment will have to stand up to intense scrutiny whichever way it falls. So I'm not sure anything can be read into the time it's taking.
I also think we now all agree that it has taken longer than "expected" because of "unknown reasons". It has taken some of us longer to come to that conclusion than it has others, but that is normal. It would be beneficial to have some discussion of what these unknown reasons could be. Again imh and poorly-informed o, any complicated legal issue can be discounted in this case. At it's heart, it's quite simple isn't it? The APT case was much more complicated, surely? Health issues of a panel member can't be discounted, but would surely be known about in legal circles. Case load? Again, that wouldn't be unknown, would it? I really can't imagine lawyers working every day in that environment haven't worked out yet who the three panel members are. So what is left?