That advert where Beckham offers the punter a beer. Get real. If it was Robbo. Or Pally. Or Sharpey then yeah. Heโd probably leave half anyway the healthy bastard. Be belling his mrs to pick him up.
Great commentators add drama to great sporting theatre.
They become synonymous with moments and matches. Glory and heartbreak.
Listening to John Virgo exclaim โWHEREโS THE CUE BALL GOING?โ was one of sportโs timeless pleasures.
A sad day. RIP.
๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐๐โ๐ ๐ญ๐ญ๐ฑ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ด๐ฒ๐
@MiguelDelaney has impressively confirmed that an initial decision is STILL yet to be made in the Man City case of 115/130 charges, after more than 13 months since the hearing ended (see quoted tweet).
But even more significantly, he has determined that Panel members have been working on other cases in that time.
This could have serious consequences for the Premier League.
Thatโs because although the Commission operates independently of the Premier League and its corporate governance, it must still comply with PL rules.
PL rules are contained within the PL Handbook, which also serves as part of the contract between the PL and its members, the clubs.
And the Independent Commission will have its own contract with the PL, which provides it with its powers. The PL Handbook outlines in Section W the rules that govern the disciplinary process, which the IC must follow.
One of those rules is W.48, which ๐ง๐๐ฆ๐ช๐๐ง๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ โ๐๐จ ๐จ๐ค๐ค๐ฃ ๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐โ.
English case law gives such a term specific meaning. Courts expect a party to be able to show that it acted as soon as circumstances permitted and any delay caused by preference or convenience is insufficient as a reason for delay.
Within the English Courts, there is a generally accepted (unwritten) rule that judgments should be delivered within three months of the end of a trial, even in long and complex cases. This was the opinion voiced by Sir Geoffrey Vos (the Chancellor of the Court of Appeal) in the case ofย Bank St Petersburg v Arkhangelskyย [2020] EWCA Civ 408. His point was that justice delayed is justice denied and as such, parties subject to commercial litigation are entitled to receive their judgments within a reasonable, short period of time.
Given the panel has taken much longer than this to reach a decision (13 months and counting), and that they did not sufficiently prioritise it (given they were working on other cases), then that could be construed as a clear breach of the PL rule to issue a decision as soon as practicable.
Why does this matter? Well, it could open up the PL to damages. It has obligations under its contracts with its members, which must be met. Members who are undoubtedly suffering damages as a result of these delays.
Say for example Man City should be relegated as a result of the charges but that doesnโt happen until next season. Could the team that finishes 18th this season have a cause of action due to the delay? Quite possibly. And that action would be against the PL directly - not Man City. Damages could be in the hundreds of millions.
There are also four clubs who have reserved their rights to claim compensation against Man City for damages arising from their charged cheating. But what if the Panel decides that Man City are only liable for damages caused in the years they are known to have breached PSR? Those clubs are still incurring damages to this day and as such, delays arising from a breach of contract by the PL could give them cause to take action against the PL directly too.
This matter has been so poorly handled by the PL Board that it should undoubtedly have cost Richard Masters and Alison Brittain their jobs.
But soon, it could end up costing them and the PL even more.