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

Legal Alien said:
Yeah and I also read a couple of weeks ago that Abramovich was going to "release funds for the transfer" I don't get it, how is the allowed?

www.90min.com

Roman Abramovich 'releases funds' for Erling Haaland bid

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has set aside the £150m needed to bid for Borussia Dortmund striker Erling Haaland this summer. As 90min exclusively revealed las
www.90min.com www.90min.com

It really is bullshit and the MSM don't question any of this.
I'm getting pissed off with the one rule for us and different rules for everyone else!
Click to expand...
Abramovich is white.
 
LongsightM13 said:
For anyone who wants to do some ‘light reading’ this afternoon, this seems to have been published today

Manchester City FC -v- FA Premier League - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

17 March 2021 – 20 July 2021 Between : Manchester City Football Club Ltd – Claimant – and – The Football Association Premier League Ltd – -Defendant Various Orders and Judgments by Mrs Justice Moulder Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court Lord...
www.judiciary.uk www.judiciary.uk
Click to expand...
Not a scooby what that actually means, I assume it's just a load of docs that couldn't be released until the recent judgement.
 
I read this so-called damning extract in the DM and couldn't fathom out what it was all about apart from two persons not knowing precisely what one was to pay the other. Now i'm not the brightest of souls who visits these pages but if this extract is intended to prove something akin to the headlines then it's going to be another long job.
 
Newman Noggs said:
The point being it wasn't set aside. Seems to relate to the PL demanding documents, us telling them to get lost and the arbitrator telling us we have to.
Click to expand...

That sentence (page 2) you referenced says:
"These proceedings concern an application by Manchester City Football Club Limited (the “Club”) to set aside the award of the arbitral tribunal dated 2 June 2020"

It seems to me (and the legal types may well say it's wrong or could be written better) that City applied for an earlier tribunal decision to be set aside - that earlier decision is the 'award', and City's application was dismissed previously.
The earlier tribunal had decided that it had jurisdiction to act on the PL request that City were obliged to provide paperwork.
That's all background.

The hearing here was concerned with whether the judgement of the prior should be published, but that doesn't mean the 'award' was not the prior tribunal decision. It wasn't concerned with changing the earlier tribunal decision.
 
One thing I've learned is that really do need to be seized of the detail to be able to express an educated opinion relating to complex legal proceedings.
 
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