CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[JGL07]

That was 3 years ago.

So in 2017, the ‘Big Three’ of the Premier League were a team without a title in five years, a team without a title in twelve years and a team without a title in twenty seven years.

That is a bloody strange ‘Big Three’!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The evidence is that the 93 page document repeatedly refers to a majority decision, which can only be 2-1. @projectriver said in his podcast that based on reading other decisions, if it wasn't a 2-1 vote they would have just said "The panel" not "The majority of the panel..."

As I said yesterday, the 1 could be relatively mild, in that they weren't comfortably satisfied that City did something they said they did. If, on a scale of 100, 60 is 'comfortably satisfied', that dissenting voice could have been anywhere between 0 and 59. We don't know.

 

[domalino]

As I said yesterday, the 1 could be relatively mild, in that they weren't comfortably satisfied that City did something they said they did. If, on a scale of 100, 60 is 'comfortably satisfied', that dissenting voice could have been anywhere between 0 and 59. We don't know.

That's irrelevant, if one person could be "59", then so could a second.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

So in 2017, the ‘Big Three’ of the Premier League were a team without a title in five years, a team without a title in twelve years and a team without a title in twenty seven years.

That is a bloody strange ‘Big Three’!

It's a typo it's really 'the £££ three' that everyone can make money out of apart from on their balance sheets.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That's irrelevant, if one person could be "59", then so could a second.

It was an attempt to (over)simplify things. In one sense if it's 2-1 then it doesn't really matter but we can't make the assumption that because someone wasn't in tune with the other two that they were taking polar opposite positions.

 

[domalino]

It was an attempt to (over)simplify things. In one sense if it's 2-1 then it doesn't really matter but we can't make the assumption that because someone wasn't in tune with the other two that they were taking polar opposite positions.

But that just confirms the idea that it could very feasibly have gone the other way.

It wasn't a slam dunk, no doubts, cast iron, irrefutable case in our favour, if it was it would have been a unanimous decision.

And as soon as you realise that, it becomes obvious why we would try every single possible avenue to shut down the case on the time bar, on the settlement agreement, on the admissability of the emails.

Because if it's a subjective enough decision to end up 2-1, it could end up 1-2 as well.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

So in 2017, the ‘Big Three’ of the Premier League were a team without a title in five years, a team without a title in twelve years and a team without a title in twenty seven years.

That is a bloody strange ‘Big Three’!

Fanbase wise, they probably are the top 3 by a chunk.
Beans are more important than silver.

 

[BlueAnorak]

You have to argue every possible avenue. What if the club had lost on the core argument about disguising equity funding, and hadn't tried all these other possible arguments to stop the case? It would be negligent in the extreme.

As much as people on here like to talk about "irrefutable" and "as we always said we would", we only won the main argument 2-1. Which means that a very respectable, independent & impartial legal mind decided we were guilty, and if one of them could, then it's not out of the question we could have lost.

Where is the evidence for a 2:1 victory? Don’t remember seeing a vote of this nature in the 93 page document. Is it just misinformation spread by press to sully the big win?

R.59 of CAS statutes states:
"The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by
the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The sole signature of the President of the Panel or the signatures of the two co-arbitrators, if the President does not sign, shall suffice."

So basically the president of the panel only votes if the other two arbiters cannot come to a (unanimous for a panel of three) majority decision.- I believe that if the president votes it says so in the judgement that the decision has been made by the President. I am looking for such a judgement to prove this but have yet to find one.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

But that just confirms the idea that it could very feasibly have gone the other way.

It wasn't a slam dunk, no doubts, cast iron, irrefutable case in our favour, if it was it would have been a unanimous decision.

And as soon as you realise that, it becomes obvious why we would try every single possible avenue to shut down the case on the time bar, on the settlement agreement, on the admissability of the emails.

Because if it's a subjective enough decision to end up 2-1, it could end up 1-2 as well.

well, given one of them was put up by UEFA, I don't really care about his 1 because why would you expect any different? They wouldn't have picked him if he didn't demonstrate appropriate interpretations of their arguments.

There is only 1 number that really mattered, and that's the third judge voting either way, he voted in our favour and that's satisfactory for me to determine we were well and truly clear.

People might come on and blabber about impartiality but people don't pick judges who are unsympathetic to their view.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Have you learned nothing???
Raggy money, much like the dipper stuff, Is ‘organic’ and is possibly the most virtuous and clean dosh on the face of the earth (particularly in the dippers’ case as it arrives freshly laundered), and it all comes as a result of ‘doing it the right way’.
Our money, on the other hand, is filthy and comes in brown envelopes direct from the sheikh as anyone who has paid attention to the press over the last week or so would know.
Do try to keep up!!

Not many United fans like to talk about the fact that the entire Glazers' operation was built on oil money. Just google Zapata corporation and Malcolm Glazer.
The Rags exist in a parallel universe where it's perfectly ok for them to receive millions from Saudi Telecom (their longest established sponsor) which is funded by the Saudi regime but not ok for the Newcastle takeover to go ahead. And the main reason for blocking the Newcastle sale was pressure put on the Premier League by one of its biggests Broadcast sponsors....Bein Sports run by the Qatar regime.