Think you're writing off Liverpool, in particular, a little prematurely there.
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.
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 if you firmly believe you have irrefutable evidence, cash transaction trail accepted by CAS & ignored by this committee would this be a procedural failure?
Think he played for Leeds once.Who?
Think you're writing off Liverpool, in particular, a little prematurely there.
It's not a case of a procedural failure. What you need to show is that it's a serious irregularity based on the panel's failure to exercise its duty to be fair and impartial in considering the evidence. And it's a very high bar, as you in effect would need to show that the panel came to a conclusion that a reasonable panel, acting fairly, couldn't have reached.
There'd therefore be a risk that an appeal by City on those grounds would fail. It's not an easy thing to prove to that level.
Probably been mentioned but 100% this is all coming out next week will be all over the news papers
Presuming he means a load more fact shy innuendo prior to the cup final.What is?
Let me frame it another way. If it’s the same evidence provided to CAS which clears City & this time we are found guilty. Can that be considered unreasonable?
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.
Relegated to league 2 followed by promotion with 138 points, winning the league cup and retaining the champions league and FA Cup along the way ;)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.
The big advantage that City have had is that we just survived the early investment phase and then we're effectively allowed by our main owner to reinvest profits.Nah, they don’t have the funds for the full rebuild that they need, they’ve just had a failed attempt at selling the business and are fighting City, Qatar, Newcastle who can now spend £500m this summer with the CL funds, Arsenal likewise and Chelsea with a competent manager in charge.
Their only chance of getting back into the CL anytime soon is to win the Europa.
Would they have a large amount to spend should Salah decide to leave?Depends on your interpretation of 'massive'. I agree with you, they are a top club and have quality, and are still better than most of the challengers. They also need significant investment, longer term. But they are unlikely to have issues with FFP so it is a bit moot. Guess that means you are right, damn.
Indeed, which shows the strategic longer-term investment plan by our owners, not taking out profit (like US owners), allowing legitimate reinvestment, whilst all the while increasing the value of the club many times over. Building this City on solid rock (to paraphrase). Good on 'em..!!The big advantage that City have had is that we just survived the early investment phase and then we're effectively allowed by our main owner to reinvest profits.
How long this will be the policy I don't know but other financially successful clubs have much less generous ownership.
it would atleast match the Coutinho moneyWould they have a large amount to spend should Salah decide to leave?
His wages.Would they have a large amount to spend should Salah decide to leave?