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

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Dion, Bobby Vee and Billy Fury are all my mum played to me when I was a little Un with an occasional bit of Cliff Richard.

 

[Centurions]

Dion, Bobby Vee and Billy Fury are all my mum played to me when I was a little Un with an occasional bit of Cliff Richard.

Have you managed to forgive her yet?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Can someone explain to me how when presented with all the emails and both evidence from our sponsors contracts and City and their accounts demonstrating that we clearly were not guilty of the charge of inflating sponsorship levels by means of owner funded equity payments that a judge still dissented and said no, fuck it, I'm comfortably satisfied you're still guilty by the look of these emails.

This is what is seemingly indicated by majority decision according to some and seems somewhat peverse or have I got that wrong?

 

[CC1]

Can someone explain to me how when presented with all the emails and both evidence from our sponsors contracts and City and their accounts demonstrating that we clearly were not guilty of the charge of inflating sponsorship levels by means of owner funded equity payments that a judge still dissented and said no, fuck it, I'm comfortably satisfied you're still guilty by the look of these emails.

This is what is seemingly indicated by majority decision according to some and seems somewhat peverse or have I got that wrong?

Move on!! Nobody really knows if the majority was 2-0 because the chairman didn’t have to use a casting vote; or whether it was 2-1 because UEFA’s judge naturally voted for them!
It doesn’t matter. We were EXHONERATED

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Have you managed to forgive her yet?

Having just gone through the throw mud and see how much sticks episodes on here, i'm reticent to be a detractor with regards to alegations of impropriety concerning minors that were unproven based on newspaper hearsay.
If you're referring to the music it wasn't my choice and I was 3 and happily joined in the chorus line of "in the pantry..." It was the swinging 60's after all!

 

[Sir peace frog]

this thread needs closing, between 2-1 and buddy fucking holly there's fuck all to read ,dont give a fuck anymore, exonerated

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Move on!! Nobody really knows if the majority was 2-0 because the chairman didn’t have to use a casting vote; or whether it was 2-1 because UEFA’s judge naturally voted for them!
It doesn’t matter. We were EXHONERATED

I have moved on and I fully realise it doesn't matter in relation to the ultimate decision!

I merely have a professional interest in the details of the decision and I thought the "UEFA ban overturned" thread was an appropriate place to discus, that was all.

 

[CC1]

I have moved on and I fully realise it doesn't matter in relation to the ultimate decision!

I merely have a professional interest in the details of the decision and I thought the "UEFA ban overturned" thread was an appropriate place to discus, that was all.

It just gives the media - who I suspect feed off this site - to continue to play the “it was fixed” card. (Especially if City fans have doubts!) Also this point has already been discussed to death. However- you’re quite entitled to continue to debate it of course

 

[kaz7]

Move on!! Nobody really knows if the majority was 2-0 because the chairman didn’t have to use a casting vote; or whether it was 2-1 because UEFA’s judge naturally voted for them!
It doesn’t matter. We were EXHONERATED

This ,too many doubting it based on the likes of delooney and harris

 

[MillionMilesAway]

It was a two-hour wonder, you could see the likes of Harris and Panja deflating like a balloon as the penny dropped.
Still didn’t stop Uncle Conn from wading in though

Panja's moved on to the Newcastle matter and whether an MP against selling arms is being consistent in asking about the Newcastle takeover.
Same gameplan, same tactics, different target.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

CITY 1 UEFA & ELITIST EUROPEAN TWATS 0 , and that's all.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

It just gives the media - who I suspect feed off this site - to continue to play the “it was fixed” card. (Especially if City fans have doubts!) Also this point has already been discussed to death. However- you’re quite entitled to continue to debate it of course

To those poor thwarted souls, I simply say,

 

[Impeccable One]

CITY 1 UEFA & ELITIST EUROPEAN TWATS 0 , and that's all.

Think it was really 2-1, I mean we were behind at half time.

 

[old blue]

Good God, are there people on here who don't? I still play this stuff every Saturday night - along with the Kalin Twins, Connie Francis , Ricky Nelson, Buddy Holly and the incomparable Everly Bros!

How could you not mention Gus Cannon's Jug Stompers. I often wonder if Gus managed to get away from the women down the Hollywood line.

 

[Maly]

Can someone explain to me how when presented with all the emails and both evidence from our sponsors contracts and City and their accounts demonstrating that we clearly were not guilty of the charge of inflating sponsorship levels by means of owner funded equity payments that a judge still dissented and said no, fuck it, I'm comfortably satisfied you're still guilty by the look of these emails.

This is what is seemingly indicated by majority decision according to some and seems somewhat peverse or have I got that wrong?

The way I’ve read all of the documented facts & how CAS works means that initially the 2 our bitters (see what I did there) Get to vote. If they both vote the same, then surely this is a majority as the 3rd (president) didn’t vote.

Therefore by the same reasoning, it’s impossible to get a unanimous vote as the president only EVER votes if it’s 1-1.

Therefore EVERY decision at CAS will ALWAYS be a majority of either 2-0 (3rd vote not taken which may have made it 2-1 therefore majority)

I think this is backed up by the fact that every single contested point was a majority

ie majority is either 2-0 (3rd vote never happens) or 2-1

Its highly unlikely that an independent arbitrator would side with UEFA’s evidence of 6 hacked emails


R46 of CAS procedural rules.

"The award shall be made by a majority decision, in the absence of a majority, by the president alone"

 

[Reddish Blue2]

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..."

Read the first two lines of R46, CAS' own rules, it's a majority unless it has to go to the President, all there the first two lines.

With or without a legal background that is what CAS says, a majority verdict can only be 2-0 and in a case like this, where where a large percent of the decisions would be clear cut. It's making out esteemed judges to be somewhat illogical and I don't think they are!

 

[M18CTID]

The way I’ve read all of the documented facts & how CAS works means that initially the 2 our bitters (see what I did there) Get to vote. If they both vote the same, then surely this is a majority as the 3rd (president) didn’t vote.

Therefore by the same reasoning, it’s impossible to get a unanimous vote as the president only EVER votes if it’s 1-1.

Therefore EVERY decision at CAS will ALWAYS be a majority of either 2-0 (3rd vote not taken which may have made it 2-1 therefore majority)

I think this is backed up by the fact that every single contested point was a majority

ie majority is either 2-0 (3rd vote never happens) or 2-1

Its highly unlikely that an independent arbitrator would side with UEFA’s evidence of 6 hacked emails


R46 of CAS procedural rules.

"The award shall be made by a majority decision, in the absence of a majority, by the president alone"

This is also backed up on the non-cooperation charge. That was a majority as well. For me, they were all 2-0 apart from that one which was 0-2

 

[Maly]

This is also backed up on the non-cooperation charge. That was a majority as well. For me, they were all 2-0 apart from that one which was 0-2

Seems logical to me mate. Brain engaged & 2+2 = something or other
In fact, I can’t really see it being anything other than this with my vast legal experience ;)

 

[slbsn]

Read the first two lines of R46, CAS' own rules, it's a majority unless it has to go to the President, all there the first two lines.

With or without a legal background that is what CAS says, a majority verdict can only be 2-0 and in a case like this, where where a large percent of the decisions would be clear cut. It's making out esteemed judges to be somewhat illogical and I don't think they are!

it means “at least a majority” as opposed to “requiring a unanimous agreement.” Ie that CAS will accept majority decisions.

it is like s20 of the Arbitration Act in England.

“Chairman.

...
(3) Decisions, orders and awards shall be made by all or a majority of the arbitrators (including the chairman).

(4) The view of the chairman shall prevail in relation to a decision, order or award in respect of which there is neither unanimity nor a majority under subsection (3)”

it wasn’t 2-0 with the president silent. It could have been 2-1 with the president against us but that’s obviously unlikely. Very few judgments state “majority” and CAS were at pains to say so on this one.

 

[Maly]

it means “at least a majority” as opposed to “requiring a unanimous agreement.” Ie that CAS will accept majority decisions.

it is like s20 of the Arbitration Act in England.

“Chairman.

...
(3) Decisions, orders and awards shall be made by all or a majority of the arbitrators (including the chairman).

(4) The view of the chairman shall prevail in relation to a decision, order or award in respect of which there is neither unanimity nor a majority under subsection (3)”

it wasn’t 2-0 with the president silent. It could have been 2-1 with the president against us but that’s obviously unlikely. Very few judgments state “majority” and CAS were at pains to say so on this one.

Your input on this topic has been amazing mate, but I’m not sure I understand you on this one. Possibly me being dim or a lack of any type of legal training, but how can you ever have a unanimous decision At CAS on each point if the 3rd person only ever votes if it’s 1-1?

By default doesn’t that make every decision at CAS a majority as you will never have 3-0 or am I missing something?

the way I’ve read it is that every result will either be a 2-0 majority or a 2-1 majority.

Surely the part in bold can’t be correct with the exception of the the co operation charge as that was the only we lost & the president only votes if the other 2 arbitrators aren’t in agreement....or again, am I missing something?

Not that it really matters as we have been EXONERATED :)