Cloughie1975
John Robertson
I strongly suspect Maguire knows a lot more than he’s letting on-he has his fingers in aHe was coy about the timing of the announcement.
But not about the plea bargain.
lot of pies.
I strongly suspect Maguire knows a lot more than he’s letting on-he has his fingers in aHe was coy about the timing of the announcement.
But not about the plea bargain.
Its strange - we all listen to the same thing and take different interpretations - that's lifeHe was coy about the timing of the announcement.
But not about the plea bargain.
There is something in the rules. It says the Commission can also set a compensation amount for impacted clubs.
Concurrent with the Everton Commission, several clubs - Forest, Leicester, Soton, Leeds and one other represented by bDe Marco - went to the High Court with the EPL to test if they should be allowed to present evidence to the Commission in order to set their compensation.
The court ruled in favour of the EPL that said it as long as the Commission did its job complying with the rules, the impacted clubs had no further case for involvement or litigation.
When Kevin Day asks him about the speculation from a journalist - and Day emphasises it is just one journalist speculating- that there is horse trading, he simply tries to think through the process - this is what 99% of the podcast series is - but he prefaces his comments with "the commission is supposed to be independent". I don't think there was anything in his response that implied he knows what the journalist is speculation is the case.Its strange - we all listen to the same thing and take different interpretations - that's life
Apologies - I didn't realise that you were in the room with them.When Kevin Day asks him about the speculation from a journalist - and Day emphasises it is just one journalist speculating- that there is horse trading, he simply tries to think through the process - this is what 99% of the podcast series is - but he prefaces his comments with "the commission is supposed to be independent". I don't think there was anything in his response that implied he knows what the journalist is speculation is the case.
the criticism of the rules as they stand - by Everton and Agreed by the Appeal - was that the rules only say the Commission should determine the punishment, not howbitbshpuld be determined. So I would speculate that it's not allowed for the EPL to negotiate something that is expected for the commission to derive.Yeah, my point was more about whether there are any rules about the ability of parties (EPL and Forest) to negotiate and ultimately modify the official outcome of what is supposed to be an independent commission.
I've listened to the podcast. Too many times now.Apologies - I didn't realise that you were in the room with them.
At 19:50 for his comment re the deadline and 23:00 for the discussion of the journalist's claim vis the 2pt plea bargain
I find when he knows something he always let's on... that's part of his schtick on the show.I strongly suspect Maguire knows a lot more than he’s letting on-he has his fingers in a
lot of pies.
The telling bit for me in the Maguire podcast for me was that he stated ‘Nick (De Marco) alwaysthe criticism of the rules as they stand - by Everton and Agreed by the Appeal - was that the rules only say the Commission should determine the punishment, not howbitbshpuld be determined. So I would speculate that it's not allowed for the EPL to negotiate something that is expected for the commission to derive.
I thought it was the hesitation in voice when asked the question and the tone of his voice sounded slightly different to the rest of the interview - as is he was very careful with is wording - to answer without saying anything.I've listened to the podcast. Too many times now.
Are you saying it was his body language that gave the game away?
I'll clutch with you! Hope springs eternal.No doubt I'm clutching at straws Richard, but maybe, just maybe, he's had a heads-up and is trying to send out a positive signal?
Just because this has carried on somewhat I'll add that's your interpretation and not a fact. The other poster is entitled to his own, and fwiw mine was the same as his. It's ok to interpret things differently, neither one can claim it as fact though.He was coy about the timing of the announcement.
But not about the plea bargain.
Don’t many of the season ticket holders flog their seats on the internet for hundreds of £ per match. Last week tickets were going for £1500!I have a work colleague who is a Liverpool season ticket holder.
Its true what you say - the 'tourists' are hated by the scouse's - they say they are taking rickets away from genuine supporters - but the club makes a fortune out of them by arranging 'weekend packages' flights, hotels and match tickets included for megamoney
8Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?
Just because this has carried on somewhat I'll add that's your interpretation and not a fact. The other poster is entitled to his own, and fwiw mine was the same as his. It's ok to interpret things differently, neither one can claim it as fact though.
In fairness I'm not sure it's always intentional - it's the nature of text-based communication really.This is so true, I always find it funny how posters present opinions and interpretations as factual statements
That would definitely result in an appeal surely.
Can we not discuss interpretations or are they too personal?Just because this has carried on somewhat I'll add that's your interpretation and not a fact. The other poster is entitled to his own, and fwiw mine was the same as his. It's ok to interpret things differently, neither one can claim it as fact though.
Marinakis agrees with you on that.This is so true, I always find it funny how posters present opinions and interpretations as factual statements