I think he means you @slbsn
Nice of "Quaid" (yet another anonymous coward) to think of me as a legal heavyweight and at least I am an actual lawyer. Anymore trolling from "Quaid" and I'll block - seen lots of it over recent weeks. Some quick counter arguments to what I consider a weak line of argument (and also irrelevant if the whole case is a slam dunk anyway as per MH): 1) contrary to the impression given, B.15.2 didn't even exist until the 2021/22 PL handbook so thats an immediately fatal problem with the argument that City breached it. "Circumvention" was a word only added in that handbook generally 2) nothing is as simple as the author suggests - if it was the 2 parties wouldn't have ended up spending the best part of £50m and 10-12 weeks at a hearing 3) that reading of CAS para 290 is tendentious at best and I don't agree with this interpretation of it. I don't believe any experienced lawyer would read it that way or that anyone would argue that finding was relevant to the IC - it will not appear in the decision when released for example especially as there is no doubt the hearing is a de novo tribunal dealing with the charges and evidence there 4) many teams this Summer alone have considered ways to "circumvent" PSR but the breach is in the "conduct" and the proof of such conduct. It is not some abstract concept, it requires actions and proof of wrongdoing 5) a breach of good faith in its relevant and simple form requires proof of wrongdoing and, probably, proven dishonest conduct - only once established is the breach proved so it is not possible for there to be a breach of B.15 in isolation 6) the general breach of B.15 established (incorrectly it turned out) in Everton 1 was worth 2-4 points before it was overturned because the PL hadn't even brought a charge on B.15 so the finding was never open to that IC
@mcfcspaces @slbsn Borson blocks anyone reminding him of the truth. He's in cahoots and denial along with all the berts. Earth calling Borson.....come in Borson. Nanu Nanu