PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...
Quoting your recent tweet- 'serious irregularity affecting the proceedings,the tribunal or the award' i.e. not just the 'process'.
IMO the exact wording seems to widen the scope and lower the bar for appeal to the High Court, for example if we think the judgement is too harsh which to me is not just a 'process' issue.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
City have presented the judge, jury & executioner with reams of records going back over the period of the witch-hunt.

The club should now demand copies of all correspondence twixt the PL and all and any club that contains the words Manchester City or MCFC over the same period.

Additionally, all minutes,transcripts and footage from all meetings internal or external containing reference to the club should be released.

Finally, the dates,locations and attendees of any meeting(formal,social,private) twixt PL and and any other PL club(s) or football officials, must be revealed.

The photos of the hideous red shirt 'rivals' meeting in NY make me feel sick and should be circulated far,wide and frequently to establish a narrative agin these odious bastards !!
Click to expand...
agree....full disclosure
 
projectriver said:
Nope, literally can't challenge on those grounds. Next.
Click to expand...

Surely the club will exhaust every legal remedy available so this case will be appealed to the High Court, if as expected, the supposedly independent panel find against us on the most serious charges. Wouldn't procedural irregularity include the panel coming to a finding which was not open to them on the evidence i.e. if our audited accounts show all was in order there was no reasonable basis upon which the panel could find otherwise.
 
Sky Blue said:
Been reading this thread for the last half an hour and my head is now mashed for the day. I'm a thick twat on legal matters.
Click to expand...
Same here. You think you have basic grasp of it all and then someone tells you something different. Our lawyers needs to fuck the Premier League into knots with what they are accusing us of.
 
Only went on RAWK on Monday to see their initial reaction, which was it would be swept under the carpet.

Anyone who knows that site knows their page count holds about 40 posts per page. It was in the 700’s on Monday. It’s just hit 832, with some of the most bitter posts you’ll ever see.

Yet we don’t matter to them?!
 
LangleyBlue1970 said:
Only went on RAWK on Monday to see their initial reaction, which was it would be swept under the carpet.

Anyone who knows that site knows their page count holds about 40 posts per page. It was in the 700’s on Monday. It’s just hit 832, with some of the most bitter posts you’ll ever see.

Yet we don’t matter to them?!
Click to expand...
Anything to deflect away from their team being shit
 
Agueroooo9320 said:
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.
View attachment 68465

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"
Click to expand...
Spot on.

@projectriver input is great but he’s had a shocker here. City can and will challenge this in court if we don’t get the outcome desired from the premier leagues ‘iNdEpEnDeNt body’.
 
r.soleofsalford said:
We are despised because we are the best run club and winning lots of trophies. If we were run badly and didn`t win stuff we`d still be liked.

This will never go away until the witch hunt is proven to be bollocks and the hateful cunts who instigated it are made to pay the price in every possible way.


We should hunt these fucker down until we get revenge on every last one of them.
Click to expand...
Mansour will get friends to buy the redshirts and ruin them. Tee hee!
 
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...
And that right there … the PL is absolutely riddled with which ‘some’ clubs hugely benefit from and others (us) they are unscrupulous with.
 
Agueroooo9320 said:
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.
View attachment 68465

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"
Click to expand...
I don’t believe any multi-billion pound company gives over that much power to a non-regulatory body, and does so without the ability to appeal any half-arsed decisions they make, including decisions that could ultimately put the club out of business. If we (and the rest of the PL clubs) have done so, then they are all fucking idiots.
 
OrigamiNinja said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is what Mark Stephens QC (CBE) had to say on UEFA in regards to that following an interview, some of the questions leading to his responses are blocked due to them being banned or whatever but it should be easy enough to follow :-



If Stefan is saying those are definitely not grounds to take things further than a PL panel then fair enough.
 
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