PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

paska said:
When the club claims otherwise and neither you nor I have proof of the claims of either side, yes, it does!!!
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

The initial failure to co-operate is recorded in two publicised judgments, one in the High Court, one in the Court of Appeal.

City have undoubtedly co-operated since the Court judgments that held they were compelled to hand over the documents sought. City's public comments clearly relate to the volume of material handed over since those judgments were delivered. That does not immunise them against a charge of failing to co-operate prior to that time.

If you want to believe otherwise, fill your boots. I won't be responding to you again.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.
Click to expand...

It is and will be a stitch up, the same as the EUFA verdict was. At least we had CAS there.
 
paulchapo said:
It is and will be a stitch up, the same as the EUFA verdict was. At least we had CAS there.
Click to expand...

If you don't require a legal qualification, then what criteria is actually assessed to make up the three-person body?

And why a KC to be paid so highly to do so?

I'm being serious, so suggestions have to have played for one of the Red shirts is obvious...

A football background, an audit background, a sponsorship expert?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.
Click to expand...

There are many situations where an arbitration panel only has one lawyer. If the arbitration concerns, say, disputed payments under a building contract, you might have a panel made up of an architect and an accountant chaired by a KC. In other cases where it is all about the legal issues - and ours might be just such a case - you might have a panel consisting of three KCs. So I don't read anything into the fact that only one member of the panel needs to be legally qualified. Since, on the other hand, a number of the issues will be accountancy issues I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one accountant on the panel.

We did raise in the court proceedings 2 years ago certain arguments suggesting that there might be in-built bias in favour of the PL in terms of how the 'members of the independent commission' were chosen. There have been since then changes to the way in which the PL appoints its commissions, and so the concerns we might have had about the constitution of the panel have in my view been reduced.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.
Click to expand...
Did you not say that 95% of the charges are off the table now anyway. Do you know which ones are left?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.
Click to expand...

As long as the other two are directed properly by the one who knows what he is talking about, then it doesn't matter. If they aren't directed properly, that is a different issue and probably grounds for an appeal?

A jury, after all has, almost always, no legal experience.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I think what makes CAS independent is that you have a neutral chairman who both parties have to agree to, and then each side chooses one from a list. They are supposed to be impartial I suppose, but if you want income from being UEFA's go to guy, then you have to be "understanding" of their needs. I am not surprised pretty much everything was 2-1.

Now, the PL chooses its own Chairman I think and he appoints the other two on the panel (or I read somewhere the PL chooses someone and he chooses the three? Not sure). Anyway, is that better? I suppose the PL KC should be independent and so should his choices. But, on the other hand, the club can't contribute to any of the choices.

Make of it what you will. Seems to me it isn't truly independent if one party chooses all the panel.
Click to expand...
To answer the second question, you have to realise the organisation known as the Premier League IS just it’s members. Therefore those appointing the chair etc are the clubs driving the accusation

Being tried by the accuser. Nothing impartial about that.
 
Chris in London said:
There are many situations where an arbitration panel only has one lawyer. If the arbitration concerns, say, disputed payments under a building contract, you might have a panel made up of an architect and an accountant chaired by a KC. In other cases where it is all about the legal issues - and ours might be just such a case - you might have a panel consisting of three KCs. So I don't read anything into the fact that only one member of the panel needs to be legally qualified. Since, on the other hand, a number of the issues will be accountancy issues I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one accountant on the panel.

We did raise in the court proceedings 2 years ago certain arguments suggesting that there might be in-built bias in favour of the PL in terms of how the 'members of the independent commission' were chosen. There have been since then changes to the way in which the PL appoints its commissions, and so the concerns we might have had about the constitution of the panel have in my view been reduced.
Click to expand...

Thank you. So if a forensic accountant is on the panel, is their opinion based on the actual law of probability, rather than any actual real evidence?

My only concern remains what level the burden of proof is at, if the Premier League have had all these years to tailor a guilty template?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Thank you. So if a forensic accountant is on the panel, is their opinion based on the actual law of probability, rather than any actual real evidence?

My only concern remains what level the burden of proof is at, if the Premier League have had all these years to tailor a guilty template?
Click to expand...

Are we not as confident now?
 
halfcenturyup said:
As long as the other two are directed properly by the one who knows what he is talking about, then it doesn't matter. If they aren't directed properly, that is a different issue and probably grounds for an appeal?

A jury, after all has, almost always, no legal experience.
Click to expand...

So how do you assure impartiality and non-confirmation bias?

Most jury's won't be exposed to the level of reporting we already have, jurors are certainly weeded out in the States and profiled.
 
Keeper! said:
They are fucked, they have joined the party too late, and the lovely thing is they all know it, hence the hate.
Click to expand...

They aren't fucked, there's 1,000s of clubs out there to buy.

But you have to question if they're doing it for the "right" reasons. CFG is a marriage of commercial and scouting, and it's been going on for 10 years. So are these clubs getting involved because they see the potential for commercial growth? Because they see the advantages of a global network of local scouting operations or simply because they like the idea of snapping up clubs like cheap real estate?

They'll be 15 years behind by the time they get going as well.
 
Centurions said:
I'd guess (and it is only a guess) that it may contain full contact details for them and their agents, family life, pastimes, injury records with full details etc etc. That is all personal and private even if some may be in the public domain to some extent. The club definitely have a duty of care. I'd be interested to know what happened to the person whose log in details were used but of course that's private & confidential too :)
Click to expand...
Not their fault if they get hacked though, is it?

Obviously you have to protect yourself against hackers as part of that GDPR duty of care, but nobody is immune to hacking, no person or organisation, and I’m sure the standard procedures have been taken to not “invite it” upon ourselves, such as it’s being framed as
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Thank you. So if a forensic accountant is on the panel, is their opinion based on the actual law of probability, rather than any actual real evidence?

My only concern remains what level the burden of proof is at, if the Premier League have had all these years to tailor a guilty template?
Click to expand...

No, when non-lawyers are on the panel their approach is usually framed by the chair - ie, the "issues we have to decide are A, B, and C" and "the evidence on issue A is as follows..." Their decision is their own based on their own view of the actual evidence.

The burden of proof remains on the Premier League. They have to persuade the panel that it is more likely than not that we are guilty of the breaches alleged. But as we've discussed before, the evidence needed to satisfy the panel that we are guilty of conduct that amounts to serious criminal offences will need to be very cogent indeed.
 
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