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

Centurions said:
If I remember rightly the CAS representative although picked by them was put forward by ourselves as an expert in the field? Didn't some of the usual idiots print that as proof that we picked 2 out of the 3 and that was the only reason that we got some of the "majority" decisions (while quietly ignoring the ones where all 3 agreed)?
Click to expand...

Yes, you remember rightly and yes, that's also right. Usual idiots is also right. So a hat-trick of rightness.
 
There's no requirement for arbitration to find some middle ground between the parties. Are people confusing it with mediation? It's perfectly common for an arbitral tribunal to come down fully on the side of one party.

Arbitration is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution that avoids litigation through state courts by having a dispute examined by a neutral party or tribunal. In general, an arbitration decision is usually binding with no right of appeal, and the procedure is usually streamlined as compared with litigation. As a result, matters tend to be resolved more quickly and at lower cost, so it's a popular choice among parties to contracts.

In City's case at CAS, I think that a big issue was that UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so here, obviously.

I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas is an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knows full well which side his bread's buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, didn't his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produce a jaw-droppingly inept, but very revealing, analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it?

As for the chairman of the panel, the rules stated that he'd be chosen by agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, by the CAS itself. We put forward a name for the third, i.e. 'neutral', arbitrator and UEFA consented. Idiots such as Tony Evans - who has zero informed perspective on this but was mouthpiece of our enemies - later cited that fact as showing UEFA failed to put their full effort into their defence before the CAS.

Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well yes, but its supposed to be a panel of three independent arbiters. If two of them just vote the way of the party that appoints them, it makes a mockery of the whole process really. May as well just appoint one together.
Click to expand...
I was responding to a post that said it was surprising that one of the judges found in favour of uefa and was explaining why that might have been the case. I wasn’t saying it was a good process
 
petrusha said:
There's no requirement for arbitration to find some middle ground between the parties. Are people confusing it with mediation? It's perfectly common for an arbitral tribunal to come down fully on the side of one party.

Arbitration is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution that avoids litigation through state courts by having a dispute examined by a neutral party or tribunal. In general, an arbitration decision is usually binding with no right of appeal, and the procedure is usually streamlined as compared with litigation. As a result, matters tend to be resolved more quickly and at lower cost, so it's a popular choice among parties to contracts.

In City's case at CAS, I think that a big issue was that UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so here, obviously.

I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas is an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knows full well which side his bread's buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, didn't his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produce a jaw-droppingly inept, but very revealing, analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it?

As for the chairman of the panel, the rules stated that he'd be chosen by agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, by the CAS itself. We put forward a name for the third, i.e. 'neutral', arbitrator and UEFA consented. Idiots such as Tony Evans - who has zero informed perspective on this but was mouthpiece of our enemies - later cited that fact as showing UEFA failed to put their full effort into their defence before the CAS.

Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
Click to expand...
Haas’s trainee claimed that his analysis was completely separate from that of his boss, indeed that they had never spoken about the matter. Go tell the Marines, I say.
It is a bit of a mystery as to how Haas came to the conclusion that doctored emails (the doctoring making them useless even as evidence of conversations) were cogent evidence of wrongdoing in the absence of any connection from the mails to actual actions.
As to the fine, I agree it was necessary. The UEFA rule that respondents must give all and any documents to them seems like we were required to seek out evidence to convict ourselves, a unique rule in world sport at that time. I think the premier league now has an equivalent rule.
 
Last edited:
Centurions said:
As far as I'm aware (which may be very little on this subject) all 3 judges are equal, not to mention experienced and probably very expensive to engage.

Each side nominate one out of a limited list and CAS chooses the third. As @StillBluessinceHydeRoad says above, it's about arbitration rather than strict legalities and I'd have thought that interpretation comes into it to a degree.

If I remember rightly the CAS representative although picked by them was put forward by ourselves as an expert in the field? Didn't some of the usual idiots print that as proof that we picked 2 out of the 3 and that was the only reason that we got some of the "majority" decisions (while quietly ignoring the ones where all 3 agreed)?
Click to expand...
Wasn‘t the only unanimous vote the decision on the fine?
 
petrusha said:
Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
Click to expand...
UEFA’s ethics committee was going to open an investigation into where the press leaks were coming from whilst the FFP investigation into City was ongoing and it never came to fruition
I wonder if UEFA and City came to an agreement of City not paying the fine if the Ethics investigation was dropped
 
dickie davies said:
UEFA’s ethics committee was going to open an investigation into where the press leaks were coming from whilst the FFP investigation into City was ongoing and it never came to fruition
I wonder if UEFA and City came to an agreement of City not paying the fine if the Ethics investigation was dropped
Click to expand...

I think we’d prefer the fine & im sure plenty at uefa prefer the cash.
 
dickie davies said:
UEFA’s ethics committee was going to open an investigation into where the press leaks were coming from whilst the FFP investigation into City was ongoing and it never came to fruition
I wonder if UEFA and City came to an agreement of City not paying the fine if the Ethics investigation was dropped
Click to expand...
The inquiry went nowhere but in unrelated news Rick Parry left his job at UEFA at that exact point to go and run the Southern Isthmian League (or some such).
 
Chris in London said:
The inquiry went nowhere but in unrelated news Rick Parry left his job at UEFA at that exact point to go and run the Southern Isthmian League (or some such).
Click to expand...
True. And you wonder whether UEFA shoved him out the door as some sort of compromise with City regarding our complaint about the leaks.
 
petrusha said:
Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
Click to expand...

They had no choice on this like you say. You have to trust that the regulatory body is impartial and basing their decisions on facts. They said they were concerned by the leaks but like you say, if they didn't fine City for our failure to cooperate they just end up with case after case before them and that's not how the system should work. They also have to come to the opinion that, if we had presented the requested information, we'd have received a different outcome. They don't see UEFA as the political weapon it is, because it's not supposed to work that way. CAS had to view our failure to comply as ultimately wasting their time and worthy of a fine.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Even if that was the case, the twat still got a job with the EFL.

Bent as fuck all of them.
Click to expand...
True. That's on the EFL though.

And that kind of thing in football isn't just confined to the footballing authorities. I recall that dodgy **** Andy Walsh getting ousted out of FC United, yet to my surprise he popped up at a Football Supporters Federation conference I attended in Blackpool - somewhat inexplicably the FSF had given him a job.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Even if that was the case, the twat still got a job with the EFL.

Bent as fuck all of them.
Click to expand...
Parry slipped quietly out of UEFA about the same time Al Khelaifi ended up on the UEFA Exec Committee. Amongst Parry's many roles he also worked as a "security consultant" for the Qatari World Cup bid committee. Perhaps it was all just a co-incidence.

www.insidethegames.biz

Security group sign major deal with Qatar 2022

BY ANDREW WARSHAW IN DOHA NOVEMBER 13 - QATAR HAS TAKEN THE NEXT DECISIVE STEP IN ITS PREPARATIONS FOR THE 2022 WORLD CUP BY SIGNING A COLLABORATION...
www.insidethegames.biz www.insidethegames.biz
 
M18CTID said:
True. And you wonder whether UEFA shoved him out the door as some sort of compromise with City regarding our complaint about the leaks.
Click to expand...

I thought Parry was moved to the EFL to (de) stabilise the league & somehow get the turkeys to vote against promotion to the premier league.
 
M18CTID said:
True. That's on the EFL though.

And that kind of thing in football isn't just confined to the footballing authorities. I recall that dodgy **** Andy Walsh getting ousted out of FC United, yet to my surprise he popped up at a Football Supporters Federation conference I attended in Blackpool - somewhat inexplicably the FSF had given him a job.
Click to expand...
Does the FSF handle cash ?


Just askin'
 
petrusha said:
... I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas is an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knows full well which side his bread's buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them...
Click to expand...
I find that bit to be particularly true. I used to be involved in equity determination where you have to determine what percentage of an oil field belonged to which company. Whilst we had to stick to the facts, we also had to try where possible to get a greater percentage for the oil company we were hired by. In other words, if we didn't get a good percentage for our oil company we wouldn't be selected again.

hmm, oh who cares, wish i hadn't bothered typing that
 
Just when I thought they'd fucked off & left us alone, they return with even more insidious ways to stop us.

What I don't get is why the red shirt mafia aren't subjected to the same level of scrutiny with their US owned / US based company sponsorship?

Fuckin twats! frowning-face_2639-fe0f.png

https://www.footballinsider247.com/man-city-ffp-busting-plan-in-peril-amid-50m-reveal-sources/

Sources: FFP-busting Man City plan in peril amid £50m document reveal​

Powerful voices within the Premier League want to impose an annual £50million cap on related-party transactions to prevent Man City and Newcastle United from artificially inflating their income.
 
Dribble said:
Just when I thought they'd fucked off & left us alone, they return with even more insidious ways to stop us.

What I don't get is why the red shirt mafia aren't subjected to the same level of scrutiny with their US owned / US based company sponsorship?

Fuckin twats! View attachment 65750

https://www.footballinsider247.com/man-city-ffp-busting-plan-in-peril-amid-50m-reveal-sources/

Sources: FFP-busting Man City plan in peril amid £50m document reveal​

Powerful voices within the Premier League want to impose an annual £50million cap on related-party transactions to prevent Man City and Newcastle United from artificially inflating their income.
Click to expand...
I'd look at source pal
 
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