So sponsorship voting

Right so the point you’re arguing is the exact same point I made in the first place...?

I mean, I’m slightly pleased if that’s the case but still!

Nope. I'm disagreeing that the court would definitely throw out the decision. It would depend on circumstances.

What circumstance could you think that would be though? Can you seriously see the pl arguing that the fca regulations, independent auditors or the eu rules all aren’t fit for purpose? As there’s no other defence I can think of them using?

The only way the pl get this through is by universal agreement, which will be why they asked Newcastle to be part of the working group over the next month.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 19 seconds ago
What circumstance could you think that would be though? Can you seriously see the pl arguing that the fca regulations, independent auditors or the eu rules all aren’t fit for purpose? As there’s no other defence I can think of them using?
===========
Nope, I don't think that will be their argument?



The only way the pl get this through is by universal agreement, which will be why they asked Newcastle to be part of the working group over the next month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one we'll have to wait and see what grounds they rely on to throw out the decision, if it happens.

Right so what do you think will be their argument then? As all courts do is judge against existing law.

All laws have exceptions and this one will be no different. They'll seek to demonstrate that the investment needs to be curtailed and can be lawfully curtailed in this circumstance.

That's assuming you know what you're talking about here to begin with.

Ah you’re after a repeat of that. Nah let’s leave it.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
Ah you’re after a repeat of that. Nah let’s leave it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough tbh.