PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

eastmanc said:
Remember when UEFA charged City last time there was a programme on Irish TV and Niall Quin was discussing City's plight with Graham Souness. Quinn stated that for him al City's success was tainted. Sourness stood up for City and reminded him of the great moments that we have gone through since the takeover and the redevelopment of the area. With friends like Niall Quin we don't need enemies. I know the post is a bit random but I thought I would get it off my chest.
Click to expand...
I have zero respect for Quinn, I have met him briefly away at Burnley in the cup, he was injured and sat in a VIP type bit behind the goal, couldn’t be arsed with the fans. Since then he’s been a proper sniping ****, but with a charming smile.
 
projectriver said:
It is written in plain language. I linked it and explained it. There are TWO routes to court. Substantive jurisdiction - irrelevant as the PL obviously has jurisdiction. And "serious irregularity". Thats it. If you disagree I think you owe the audience a proper explanation why.
Click to expand...
Playing catch up here, but surely a claim for breach of contract can’t be precluded unless there was a civil restraint order in place.
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
I have zero respect for Quinn, I have met him briefly away at Burnley in the cup, he was injured and sat in a VIP type bit behind the goal, couldn’t be arsed with the fans. Since then he’s been a proper sniping ****, but with a charming smile.
Click to expand...
Smiling assassin.
 
projectriver said:
It depends what they mean. They have already been to the High Court on procedural grounds in this matter. And can again. BUT they can't go there in respect of the substantive consideration of the facts unless the process has serious irregularities or doesn't have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I took away from it that it wouldn't be to set aside any punishment, but to go nuclear on the Premier League with what we have.
 
eastmanc said:
My son reckons that one of them dates to 2009 that the grass wasn't cut short enough. Is that true?
Click to expand...

No. There’s some confusion because the PL listed all the rules broken in each season, but the rules have changed over the years.

So rule E11 in the 2009 rule book is completely different to rule E11 in the current rule book.

There’s been some confusion from fans based on this which isn’t surprising because the PL made some mistakes as well.
 
terraloon said:
From the PL rule book

Award
X.37.
Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act. In the event that a party to arbitration under this Section X challenges the award, whether in the English High Court or any other forum, it shall ensure that the League is provided with a copy of any written pleadings filed and/or evidence adduced as soon as reasonably practicable after their/its filing.
Click to expand...
I read that as we can't appeal to the PL directly, they can't decide if we can take them to the High Court or not as it's not their decision. It's up to the High Court if we can proceed.
 
domalino said:
No. There’s some confusion because the PL listed all the rules broken in each season, but the rules have changed over the years.

So rule E11 in the 2009 rule book is completely different to rule E11 in the current rule book.

There’s been some confusion from fans based on this which isn’t surprising because the PL made some mistakes as well.
Click to expand...
That clears that , thanks.
 
projectriver said:
It depends what they mean. They have already been to the High Court on procedural grounds in this matter. And can again. BUT they can't go there in respect of the substantive consideration of the facts unless the process has serious irregularities or doesn't have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Surely the PL being able to bring charges and then be judge, jury and executioner on those charges is irregular? Nothing remotely regular about that and who the frig would sign up to it if this was the case?
 
i♥city said:
Vinnie getting fired up! That's more like it. Everyone associated with the club need to speak the fuck up. If your allegiance or association with the club only goes as far as getting paid to oversee the activities of the club then you are not really one of us. At times like this we don't need to dig up stupid conditional clauses, if you stand with the team then speak the fuck up!
Click to expand...
The comments on that article shows how much damage the press and alike have done to our club ( blind hatred ).
If we get through this and I believe we will we should take the fuckers to the cleaners no matter what the cost.

CTID
 
KS55 said:
Question. If there is no way to challenge the result of the arbitration in court, how about an allegation of bad faith by the PL and failure to follow their own rules?
Click to expand...
Yes that is likely "serious irregularity" so x.37 comes into play. But it would need to be more than an allegation.
 
117 M34 said:
So if we are found guilty and are given a £1b fine and relegated 10 divisions we can't go to court to say it's a too harsh punishment?
Click to expand...
Surely that would substantial injustice and could be challenged? Hopefully Lord Pannick can sort things out.
 
projectriver said:
How so? Show me the operative rules in the PL rules we signed up to?
Click to expand...
well you yourself put it out in your last comment. you are being a bit obtuse on the word "serious". no one is asking you if the whole hearing will take place in the court rather if there are "serious" disputes with the way the panel is handling things. besides disagree with how interpret section 68 of the act.

The rulebook says we can challenge the result under section X.37 which can be seen below.
arbitration_rulebook.PNG

Section 68 of the act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/68

Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a)failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b)the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d)failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e)any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g)the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h)failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i)any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.


reading that don't you think if the it will be pretty easy to file a case under 68(a), 68(c), 68(g), 68(i) if say the arbitration panel shafts us by being unfair in the process of examining the evidence, say if they refuse to accept our exculpatory evidence, or if they corruptly make a decision through external pressure, or if they give us a excessive punishment. it clearly says in the act that it is possible to challenge those "serious" issues. so yes you are being obtuse with the word "serious"
 
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