Question re our appeal | Page 2 | Vital Football

Question re our appeal

The Appeal will commence today.

The Trust have confirmed that a report compiled by Robert Matusiewick, was presented to both The Club and the PL in advance of today's appeal.

Lawyers for the PL have agreed that the report will be forwarded to the IC for consideration.

If you cast your minds back, Robert was the geezer who wrote an appraisal of the ICs findings which highlighted a number of inconsistencies.

His report covers the Aims of PSR, an interpretation of the rules and the inconsistencies in the original judgement.

The trust will make the report available at some point after the hearing
 
mao tse tung said:
The Appeal will commence today.

The Trust have confirmed that a report compiled by Robert Matusiewick, was presented to both The Club and the PL in advance of today's appeal.

Lawyers for the PL have agreed that the report will be forwarded to the IC for consideration.

If you cast your minds back, Robert was the geezer who wrote an appraisal of the ICs findings which highlighted a number of inconsistencies.

His report covers the Aims of PSR, an interpretation of the rules and the inconsistencies in the original judgement.

The trust will make the report available at some point after the hearing
Click to expand...
Robert made many good points on an earlier Garribaldi Red podcast. I assume he has added to it since as the Everton report has come out. It is good news that the report has been allowed to be forwarded to IC. Robert is a red.
 
Polly 433 said:
Robert made many good points on an earlier Garribaldi Red podcast. I assume he has added to it since as the Everton report has come out. It is good news that the report has been allowed to be forwarded to IC. Robert is a red.
Click to expand...
Is he the guy who accused it of being a hatchet job?
 
seasider red said:
I think it was, I remember thinking as I was listening to him, that really we should have him representing us as the points he made were so well argued and well presented
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

Looking forward to reading the report when issued and given the way he articulated the arguments in an orderly and understandable fashion then the IC will have to at least answer back to the points raised and give us some sense even if no point back
 
Sanchez flores said:
Was that report allowed to be submitted? I thought you could not submit anything new for an appeal?
Click to expand...
I don’t see why you can’t submit new evidence - it’s a new hearing after all. Either way though it isn’t actually evidence - it’s a report by an accountant on the evidence and the decision(s).
 
Basha73 said:
I don’t see why you can’t submit new evidence - it’s a new hearing after all. Either way though it isn’t actually evidence - it’s a report by an accountant on the evidence and the decision(s).
Click to expand...
In Everton's original case they could not submit anything new that wasn't heard at the original hearing Basha.

I'm really happy if we have been allowed to use that report, it certainly makes very valid points.

I still not sure they will be interested to consider it though when making a decision to tell us you're staying at - 4
 
Basha73 said:
I don’t see why you can’t submit new evidence - it’s a new hearing after all. Either way though it isn’t actually evidence - it’s a report by an accountant on the evidence and the decision(s).
Click to expand...

I was thinking that it would be very funny if the IC made comment to impartiality and bias due to Robert being a forest supporter and on the NFFC Trust.

I mean if they did that would be questioning the integrity of a qualified accountant wouldn't it.
 
Barry Goldie said:
I was thinking that it would be very funny if the IC made comment to impartiality and bias due to Robert being a forest supporter and on the NFFC Trust.

I mean if they did that would be questioning the integrity of a qualified accountant wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
That really would be hilarious…
 
Sanchez flores said:
In Everton's original case they could not submit anything new that wasn't heard at the original hearing Basha.

I'm really happy if we have been allowed to use that report, it certainly makes very valid points.

I still not sure they will be interested to consider it though when making a decision to tell us you're staying at - 4
Click to expand...
That in itself is grounds for challenging the legality of any decisions made.
 
Barry Goldie said:
I was thinking that it would be very funny if the IC made comment to impartiality and bias due to Robert being a forest supporter and on the NFFC Trust.

I mean if they did that would be questioning the integrity of a qualified accountant wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
They are far smarter than that-more likely they will find someone to rebut his points
 
Basha73 said:
I don’t see why you can’t submit new evidence - it’s a new hearing after all. Either way though it isn’t actually evidence - it’s a report by an accountant on the evidence and the decision(s).
Click to expand...
New facts are not allowed. It is an appeal not a retrial. No new facts in Roberts report just same facts with a different view and put succinctly and coherently. I imagine we will get. 5. Points returned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.