and thats without the unrecorded conversations of what would be 'good for the game/brand'Yes, they choose the pool of panelists, and then they chose which panelists serve.
There's nothing independent about it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and thats without the unrecorded conversations of what would be 'good for the game/brand'Yes, they choose the pool of panelists, and then they chose which panelists serve.
There's nothing independent about it.
Looks like I’m picked the wrong season to quit sniffing glueI believe this formula is only being used for the Everton case...
Indeed, the panel refused to accept the PL's proposed formula for any sanctions.I believe this formula is only being used for the Everton case...
It's widely being put out by the press & football pundits that City's charges are totally different from Evertons & will take at least 2 years to come to a conclusion.They can't do that...it will be far too obvious. If one charge is 10 points, city with 115 will have to be at the very least 115 points...one point for every charge...and even if they manage to get reduced to let say 80 charges, it will still probably be 80 points you would think meaning dead certain to be relegated.
Looks like I picked the wrong season to quit amphetaminesEvertons is arbitrary and only apply to Everton.
Only a pritt, sorry prat would do that.Looks like I’m picked the wrong season to quit sniffing glue
Yes, they’re accused of intentionally breaking the rules.It's widely being put out by the press & football pundits that City's charges are totally different from Evertons & will take at least 2 years to come to a conclusion.
Evertons is arbitrary and only apply to Everton.
Softening it up already ?
exactly, isnt that how the Bosman ruling developed after a court case challenged the legal status of the rules?Not 100% on that. The rules say we can’t go to court but as far I know you can’t completely contract out of the laws of the land - putting “you can’t sue us” in a contract doesn’t necessarily make it so. If there is something procedural- and abuse of process is an issue here- it could still end up in court.
I think the football authorities realised the error of their ways after things like Bisman and wrote into the rules that you cant take anything to court or CAS. They want to make sure that there is no method of appeal outside their own crooked and rigged system.exactly, isnt that how the Bosman ruling developed after a court case challenged the legal status of the rules?
the point is that they can write it into the rules of the competitions but uf they contravene the laws of the land, such as effecting a restraint of trade (by stopping a business owner putting their own money into their own business perhaps), then they can lodge a tort in a civil court and there isnt a lot the FA/EPL can do about itI think the football authorities realised the error of their ways after things like Bisman and wrote into the rules that you cant take anything to court or CAS. They want to make sure that there is no method of appeal outside their own crooked and rigged system.
Its a building with patients and Dr's but thats not important right now....Looks like I picked the wrong season to quit amphetamines
Surely you can’t be serious.Looks like I picked the wrong season to quit amphetamines
I am, and don't call me ShirleyShirley you can’t be serious.
City charges are not too dissimilar if not actually worse...over inflated sponsorship deals to ensure they meet the financial regulations...without those crazy commercial deals they got, especially at the start of everything, they wouldn't have been able to build the squad they have today.It's widely being put out by the press & football pundits that City's charges are totally different from Evertons & will take at least 2 years to come to a conclusion.
Evertons is arbitrary and only apply to Everton.
Softening it up already ?