Newcastle in the next couple of years will take our place as the club of hate, just like we took Chelsea's (Abramovich), we will become one of the accepted elite again just like Chelsea.
This is well worth a watch
Newcastle in the next couple of years will take our place as the club of hate, just like we took Chelsea's (Abramovich), we will become one of the accepted elite again just like Chelsea.
This is well worth a watch
I cant wait for an American club to announce a multi million pound shirt sponsor with Smith and Western
HHSM is sleeping with Masters' wife..?This is what I don't understand.
Consider this. You are a member of a golf club. You are sleeping with the Chairman's wife. You make a minor infraction of the club's rules, but the Chairman puts you through a process, they find you broke the club's rules and fine you a million pounds.
What the legal experts on here seem to be saying is that, as long as the process was followed properly, you are fucked. No matter what evidence you have against the charge, no matter if the punishment is disproportionate, no matter who is judge and jury. As a legal "layman", I find it hard to believe that that really is the situation.
In the two Gary Neville interviews , Parish comes across as a very decent man, hugely impressive individual.I was really surprised with Steve Parish saying that what City owners gave brought to the league & the town is positive. He was certainly clear that he had no idea or involved in any of the charges against City.
I’ve heard him in the past slag us off so it’s a very welcome turnaround.
You can’t fix stupid.I’ve had similar to that by scousers. Main one is we picked 2 judges & no other reason. The funny thing is those notions have been put in their head by the MSM.
Simon Jordan likes this postIn the two Gary Neville interviews , Parish comes across as a very decent man, hugely impressive individual.
I agree, but the best qualified opinion on here is from Projectriver and that is his position.This is what I don't understand.
Consider this. You are a member of a golf club. You are sleeping with the Chairman's wife. You make a minor infraction of the club's rules, but the Chairman puts you through a process, they find you broke the club's rules and fine you a million pounds.
What the legal experts on here seem to be saying is that, as long as the process was followed properly, you are fucked. No matter what evidence you have against the charge, no matter if the punishment is disproportionate, no matter who is judge and jury. As a legal "layman", I find it hard to believe that that really is the situation.
I’ve been interested to read & compare some of the Ivan Toney betting scenarios (don’t want to call it a scandal because it’s not) to that of our own charges. Not the same I know, but two similar stories being played out in two completely different directions. Firstly I don’t hear 232 separate charges on loop for his indiscretions, there is no cheat narrative, no mass outrage, and he certainly wasn’t found guilty before he had a chance to defend himself, there where leeks that he’d admitted the charges (typical football authorities) but definitely no press pile on, in fact the general consensus has been one of sympathy, even Waistcoat has been out defending him, if he didn’t play for plucky Brentford or wasn’t English he’d of been thrown to the dogs methinks, and had he scored winners against certain red teams the press would be screaming for the return of points, and telling the FA to ger-on with it, as it is there seems a greater understanding, patience and sympathy being shown, as well as an allowance for due process, now compare that to our ten year struggle
I agree, but the best qualified opinion on here is from Projectriver and that is his position.
[That recourse to law is on very narrow grounds, basically irregularity in the process] is what I don't understand.
Consider this. You are a member of a golf club. You are sleeping with the Chairman's wife. You make a minor infraction of the club's rules, but the Chairman puts you through a process, they find you broke the club's rules and fine you a million pounds.
What the legal experts on here seem to be saying is that, as long as the process was followed properly, you are fucked. No matter what evidence you have against the charge, no matter if the punishment is disproportionate, no matter who is judge and jury. As a legal "layman", I find it hard to believe that that really is the situation.
Who?Simon Jordan likes this post
Fully agree as probably so would our legal experts.This is what I don't understand.
Consider this. You are a member of a golf club. You are sleeping with the Chairman's wife. You make a minor infraction of the club's rules, but the Chairman puts you through a process, they find you broke the club's rules and fine you a million pounds.
What the legal experts on here seem to be saying is that, as long as the process was followed properly, you are fucked. No matter what evidence you have against the charge, no matter if the punishment is disproportionate, no matter who is judge and jury. As a legal "layman", I find it hard to believe that that really is the situation.
Thanks, Petrusha, very clear.It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).
The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.
However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".
Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).
Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".
So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.
If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.
The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).
It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).
The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.
However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".
Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).
Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".
So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.
If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.
The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).
So in summary, there IS a possibility of challenging any outcome, and/or mechamism to protect against an outcome that takes the piss. That makes sense.
Thanks for explaining that clearly. It's reassuring to hear that they couldn't just impose some arbitrary penalty (say relegation to League Two) and that we'd just have to accept it with no legal recourse whatsoever.It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).
The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.
However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".
Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).
Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".
So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.
If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.
The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).
Think you're writing off Liverpool, in particular, a little prematurely there.With Liverpool and Tottenham now locked outside the top 4 for a decade without massive investment
Yes, the idea is basically that you don't get a right of appeal to the courts if the decision is a bit contentious or marginal or you don't like it or think you weren't treated well but the tribunal has basically acted professionally. But if you get properly fucked over and are able to justify that to a court, protection is there.
The latter is very rare as generally tribunals covered by the Act comprise professional people who take their duties seriously. But there does seem to be a sense in football that those with regulatory power can act as they wish without being bound by legal principles that apply in other industries, so I suppose you never know.