Jump to content

Various: N-O has lost the plot over potential end of Mike Ashley's tenure


Recommended Posts

I thought someone said that Stavely had inferred that they wouldn't be spending crazy money on players to start, but instead focus on infrastructure and the youth setup first.  Not sure how true that is.

 

 

 

We won't be able to spend boatloads on players anyway due to FFP rules. I would think prices will come down though so that means we should still be able to compete with anyone budget wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got no idea why I've spent 10 mins watching it, haven't a scooby doo what is going on.

Same, I find it interesting, have havent a fucking clue whats going on :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

She scares the life out of me

 

No idea why, this fat bloke on https://cl-2016-000049.sparq.me.uk/ is running rings around her.

He’s just cross examining her. So far she has came up with good reasons and countered him well. There was a point where the judge even told him to let her speak as he was trying to lead the answers to his agenda by allowing her to only give responses without context.

Just recently he has presented her with a document saying one thing, and she has pointed out that the document says the exact opposite to what says it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got no idea why I've spent 10 mins watching it, haven't a scooby doo what is going on.

Same, I find it interesting, have havent a fucking clue whats going on :lol:

 

I wish it wasn't almost midnight here (Australia) so I could keep watching it.

 

I think I have some, limited, understanding of what is going on and boy I hope @RedRoseMichelle is watching and can provide some explanation.

 

My current interpretation is that Staveley's team have presented a package of evidence and the (likely) Barclays' lawyer is now trying to undermine that evidence by attempting to get Staveley to contradict her written testimony.  For example, the examining lawyer attempted to put that Staveley did not actually structure the deal to which Staveley responded by attempting to show the court that the lawyer was using an overly simplistic definition of "structure" and explained how she had undertaken substantial steps to create substantial mechanisms for the deal to happen.  The lawyer also attempted to have the court believe that Staveley had not secured substantial investment for PCP, but Staveley responded by explaining (I think) the lines of credit she had established for PCP so that PCP could be a major investor in the Barclays deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She scares the life out of me

 

No idea why, this fat bloke on https://cl-2016-000049.sparq.me.uk/ is running rings around her.

He’s just cross examining her. So far she has came up with good reasons and countered him well. There was a point where the judge even told him to let her speak as he was trying to lead the answers to his agenda by allowing her to only give responses without context.

Just recently he has presented her with a document saying one thing, and she has pointed out that the document says the exact opposite to what says it does.

 

Yeah, so far the (I presume) Barclays' lawyer is doing the sort of tricky word games that cause people to hate lawyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I'm fairly unimpressed with the (I presume) Barclay's lawyer.  They will, likely, have had some weeks with Staveley's package of written testimony to identify ways to undermine her case and to put together their counter evidence to the court.  Instead, their lawyer seems to be attempting to be tricky with language in an attempt to trip up Staveley in the court room instead of having found flaws in the evidence or flaws of interpretation of events.  In most situations one would expect a court to see through such games.

 

The (I presume) Barclays' lawyer has an evident pattern to his questioning.  He pursues a series of tedious points of interpretation in an attempt to muddle Staveley and then when he feels he's got her a bit addled he hits her with a very aggressive (badgering) question in an attempt to blindside her and get her to concede a point she didn't intend to concede.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She scares the life out of me

 

No idea why, this fat bloke on https://cl-2016-000049.sparq.me.uk/ is running rings around her.

He’s just cross examining her. So far she has came up with good reasons and countered him well. There was a point where the judge even told him to let her speak as he was trying to lead the answers to his agenda by allowing her to only give responses without context.

Just recently he has presented her with a document saying one thing, and she has pointed out that the document says the exact opposite to what says it does.

 

There was also a point where she said she had no idea where this figure of £40m had came from before eventually admitting it must have came from herself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...