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

spiny said:
I remember that song too. The Big Three were a Liverpool group contempory With the Beatles - see what I did there?

At one time the Big Three were bigger than the Beatles before Hamburg. Massive indeed.
Click to expand...
You probably remember the Merseybeats, Billy J Kramer, B Bumble and the Stingers, Eden Kane, Johnny and the Hurricanes and a whole lot more.
 
bluemanchester said:
I thought I read on here thst we chose one UEFA chose one and as we were the defendant we chose the president from a CAS list and UEFA had to agree with that choice, as they did, otherwise CAS would appoint a president if City and UEFA could not agree on the president City chose. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
They're all supposedly independent which is my point.
 
Do we know anything about the redacted and missing parts of the emails surprised we where allowed to not show the full emails and attachments
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
ive been banned from the media thread for the last 12 months , so i will put this here as its relevant , Rob Harris is now questioning why we were allowed to choose two of the three judges/panel who came to the CAS decision ,Harris really is obsessed with our club , when football does return he will need a big pair of bollocks to turn up at the Etihad.
Click to expand...
Should have appealed your ban? My appeal on my Liverpool thread ban was rejected by CAS but you may get lucky
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
When supporters are allowed back i don't think he will be coming anywhere near the Etihad , he's a typical internet warrior would love the club to make an example of him and bankrupt the bastard.
Click to expand...
Talkshite have done their live commentaries in front of a studio large screen for ages. The sky commentators as the match seem to be watching their screen as much as the field.
I cant see him going to many live matches at all despite the hospitality. (Food that is)
 
WRicko said:
Do we know anything about the redacted and missing parts of the emails surprised we where allowed to not show the full emails and attachments
Click to expand...
I would have thought that we did present the full emails as evidence but asked CAS to redact any commercially sensitive info that wasn't relevant to the verdict.
 
bluemanchester said:
I thought I read on here thst we chose one UEFA chose one and as we were the defendant we chose the president from a CAS list and UEFA had to agree with that choice, as they did, otherwise CAS would appoint a president if City and UEFA could not agree on the president City chose. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
 
blueste41 said:
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
Click to expand...
We may never know, but I dont understand how it would be quicker letting City choose the chairman rather than Cas appoint him if that was the regs. Both City and UEFA wanted a quick hearing.
PS. The Athletic you say, must be true. Der Speigels sister paper.;)
 
blueste41 said:
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
Click to expand...

hmm that's interesting. I assume a lot is being made of this? i dont read the sport pages much anymore
 
blueste41 said:
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
Click to expand...
The Athletic was wrong in saying that and Matt Slater accepted and corrected that. They couldn't have read the document properly or chose to ignore what it actually says, in favour of something that made a better headline.

Each side selects one arbitrator but there is no specific, documented or set procedure for how the Chair is selected. But the general principle in the CAS procedural document is that in the absence of any other agreement, they can be imposed by the CAS President.

In our case, the suggestion of Rui Botica Santos was made by us and UEFA agreed with that choice the same day. The President of the CAS Arbitration Division then appointed him. That's exactly as it appears in the full judgement so there is little excuse for getting it wrong.
 
blueste41 said:
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
Click to expand...

Ffs, why perpetuate the bullshit they spread as fact?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Athletic was wrong in saying that and Matt Slater accepted and corrected that. They couldn't have read the document properly or chose to ignore what it actually says, in favour of something that made a better headline.

Each side selects one arbitrator but there is no specific, documented or set procedure for how the Chair is selected. But the general principle in the CAS procedural document is that in the absence of any other agreement, they can be imposed by the CAS President.

In our case, the suggestion of Rui Botica Santos was made by us and UEFA agreed with that choice the same day. The President of the CAS Arbitration Division then appointed him. That's exactly as it appears in the full judgement so there is little excuse for getting it wrong.
Click to expand...
And there is nothing wrong with that! UEFA could have said no in which case another person would have had to be found. So City and UEFA AGREED about the 3rd judge. City did NOT select 2 of the 3 judges. This is simple Der Spiegel level twisting of words in order to harm City.
 
blueste41 said:
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
Click to expand...

"select" is a convenient almost-synonym which implies that it was unilateral. the "UEFA bowed to City" is just crap though - that's absolutely to create an impression.

We made a suggestion which UEFA agreed to and CAS agreed to, but it has often deliberately been twisted for effect.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
@projectriver:
Sorry to bother you on something minor, but you may be the best to assess this.

The use of the word 'majority' is common in describing the panel opinions.
Should anything be read into the meaning of that? Is it always 2-1, and does it preclude 3-0?
I can't search the doc to see if they ever use 'unanimous'.
Click to expand...

Don’t know if this helps - from CAS procedural rules


R46 Award

The award shall be made by a majority decision, or, in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. The award shall be written, dated and signed. Unless the parties agree otherwise, it shall briefly state 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.
 
blueste41 said:
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
Click to expand...

The idea that City were allowed to select the presiding judge is purest bullshine. We may have suggested one, but UEFA would surely have been under no obligation to accept that suggestion. It’s just another load of half arsed guff dreamt up by Harris, Evans et al, to try and discredit the verdict
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top