Greg Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 PL being perfectly reasonable - the initial deadline was way too ambitious. Still struggling to see this progressing to a successful case before the CAT, and maintain my point on standing. PL never going to just ignore it, suspect their next move will be to argue there is no case to be had. The letter before action didn't establish standing and lacked a fair few other key items you would expect to see. I joined NUST a few months ago cos i thought they might represent the supporters better if they had a voice backed by large numbers...i cannot however accept any supporters organisation that says the PL are acting reasonable.......They havn’t done that during this last 7 months I am not NUST. You are their representative , no ? Not on this forum no - I am myself. All views expressed are mine. Are you a NUST rep or not ? When I post on this forum I post as myself. As I have done since the day I joined over 15 years ago back in 2004. I represent nobody other than myself unless I explicitly tell you otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. Fuck em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. Fuck them, drag them through the shit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. f*** em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. f*** em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action. Fair enough Is a week deemed unreasonable? Is 3 weeks more the norm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. f*** em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action. Fair enough Is a week deemed unreasonable? Is 3 weeks more the norm? Yes - basically. I hope this action works - I am just trying to bring some objective reasonableness to the false hope and hyperbole this sort of thing creates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. f*** em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action. Fair enough Is a week deemed unreasonable? Is 3 weeks more the norm? Yes - basically. I hope this action works - I am just trying to bring some objective reasonableness to the false hope and hyperbole this sort of thing creates. Yeah I get that, I'm still just frustrated at the sheer amount of time it's taking to get resolved one way or the other tbh. Feels like they will push the limits of time as much as possible deliberately - delay after delay after delay. It's highly annoying Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
InspectorCoarse Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 PL being perfectly reasonable - the initial deadline was way too ambitious. Still struggling to see this progressing to a successful case before the CAT, and maintain my point on standing. PL never going to just ignore it, suspect their next move will be to argue there is no case to be had. The letter before action didn't establish standing and lacked a fair few other key items you would expect to see. I joined NUST a few months ago cos i thought they might represent the supporters better if they had a voice backed by large numbers...i cannot however accept any supporters organisation that says the PL are acting reasonable.......They havn’t done that during this last 7 months I am not NUST. You are their representative , no ? Not on this forum no - I am myself. All views expressed are mine. Are you a NUST rep or not ? When I post on this forum I post as myself. As I have done since the day I joined over 15 years ago back in 2004. I represent nobody other than myself unless I explicitly tell you otherwise. Cool ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. f*** em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action. Fair enough Is a week deemed unreasonable? Is 3 weeks more the norm? Yes - basically. I hope this action works - I am just trying to bring some objective reasonableness to the false hope and hyperbole this sort of thing creates. Yeah I get that, I'm still just frustrated at the sheer amount of time it's taking to get resolved one way or the other tbh. Feels like they will push the limits of time as much as possible deliberately - delay after delay after delay. It's highly annoying Exactly but hopefully that’s why they said one week initially in the anticipation that the Premier League would attempt to delay things. 1 + 2 is better than 3 + 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 PL being perfectly reasonable - the initial deadline was way too ambitious. Still struggling to see this progressing to a successful case before the CAT, and maintain my point on standing. PL never going to just ignore it, suspect their next move will be to argue there is no case to be had. The letter before action didn't establish standing and lacked a fair few other key items you would expect to see. I joined NUST a few months ago cos i thought they might represent the supporters better if they had a voice backed by large numbers...i cannot however accept any supporters organisation that says the PL are acting reasonable.......They havn’t done that during this last 7 months I am not NUST. You are their representative , no ? Not on this forum no - I am myself. All views expressed are mine. Are you a NUST rep or not ? When I post on this forum I post as myself. As I have done since the day I joined over 15 years ago back in 2004. I represent nobody other than myself unless I explicitly tell you otherwise. Cool ? How is it hard to separate between personal opinions and professional/organizational opinions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Let’s just hope it is just part of a much bigger plan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_F Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Liam Kennedy saying they're gonna turn down the PL's extension. Dunno what that leads to like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Liam Kennedy saying they're gonna turn down the PL's extension. Dunno what that leads to like. Pressure! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 If the PL said 'yes, in two weeks time we will supply the papers you want', but as it is they are only asking for an extension to consider their position. f*** em, they've had long enough to consider their position. Inclined to agree. They've dragged this out for long enough, I'd give them an extra 48 hours out of courtesy then if nothing satisfactory has been received by then you've got Friday to put things in motion formally. f*** them, drag them through the s*** Not how legal processess work - the ridiculous delay on the takeover refusal / non decision really has no bearing on them having a reasonable period of time to respond to a letter before action. Obviously haven't got a clue how these things work, I'm just stating my opinion on how I feel about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Liam Kennedy saying they're gonna turn down the PL's extension. Dunno what that leads to like. Good good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Not giving the extra time would be an interesting move given their initial deadline was so short - I think it makes it easier for the PL to argue the case is unreasonable and futile if they do go ahead with the legal action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). He would have little choice under the cab rank rule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). He would have little choice under the cab rank rule. What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). He would have little choice under the cab rank rule. What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here. If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). He would have little choice under the cab rank rule. What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here. If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is. Alright I see Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). He would have little choice under the cab rank rule. What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here. If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is. Alright I see Cheers. Essentially (where the name stems from), say you're a cab driver and you see five people in the queue. In front there are four greasy pedos and in the fifth spot in the queue, prime Pamela Anderson is waiting, so you pass the four guys who have waited longer because you'd rather get Pamela in your cab. It's a law that prevents preferential treatment and secures everyone counsel on the same terms as everyone else. You have to let the first person in the queue into your cab no matter how sweaty he might be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 That actually makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Leads to it going to court if the complainants have the balls and can afford it. Letter Before Action very rarely leads to action in my experience, and I've seen plenty of them. So the PL have called their bluff in that case? Not sure if one of Europes top QC's would get involved in a bluff (potential). He would have little choice under the cab rank rule. What do you mean he would have no choice? It's not like he was forced to take the case on from the beginning? Unless I'm totally lost here. If approached by a client with a case in his field of law he has to accept regardless of who the client is. No way. There’s zero way that he would have to represent anyone he doesn’t want to. That’s a ridiculous notion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts