This is actually a misrepresentation of what has been stated by several lawyers on here with regard to the possibility of City managing to have the case heard in the High Court, and I think it worth clarifying the point. Under section 68(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, City would have the right to "apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award."
It's certainly true that many of this board's lawyers commenting on the issue have sought to downplay the chances of City being able to use this provision. After all, challenges under section 68 are meant to be a last resort that's rarely used. Further, in reaching our assessment, we've generally assumed that the panel will be composed of eminent professionals who'll act accordingly during the proceedings, thus neutralising the prospect of their being held to have committed a "serious irregularity".
Frankly, the existence of this provision should be enough to keep the panel honest in terms of the way it conducts itself. It would be humiliating for the PL as a whole, but particularly for the individual members of the panel, if they were to find their award being challenged in the High Court on the ground of it entailing a "serious irregularity". I think we can safely assume that, if the panel offers us anything remotely resembling an opportunity for a High Court challenge, City and our lawyers will be on it like a rat up a drainpipe.
Nonetheless, some posters still fear a stitch-up. These people might well question whether there could be a problem for City owing to the absence in section 68 of a right to challenge an award on the ground of it being perverse, manifestly wrong or whatever. Personally, I don't really think that's an issue, even if the panel were to try to do a number on us by relying on the relatively low standard of proof required (the balance of probabilities) to reach an evidentially questionable verdict.
Why am I so sanguine? Well, section 68(2) lists what constitutes a "serious irregularity" for these purposes, and one of them, pursuant to section 68(2)(a), is where a tribunal fails to comply with section 33 of the same Act, which among other things imposes a duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties". In practical terms, I see it as highly unlikely that a tribunal could produce an award that ran counter to the weight of the evidence without falling foul of that provision. The bias will surely shine through in other ways, too, in such a situation, thus rendering a challenge possible.
Admittedly, I can't say that the above would be so in every case, and there must be at least a notional chance of a dubious award being handed down but not being accompanied by the kind of irregularity that gives scope for a challenge. So what happens in this somewhat unlikely but theoretically possible case? I was discussing this with a fellow Blue a month or so ago. My bet is that you'll see court action - it just won't be City that's the litigant.
Remember that, in the CAS proceedings, City pleaded and the panel implicitly accepted that the allegations, if true, would inevitably involve various fraudulent criminal conspiracies between the club, some of its sponsors, their officers, as well as other prominent individuals and entities based in Abu Dhabi. Of course, I may be wrong and I don't claim ITK status on that, but I don't see the Emirate of Abu Dhabi taking that lying down. Simple as that.
I believe this person, simple as...I hate to say it, but the "there will be zero ambiguity" line should be a major red flag for anyone inclined to believe this person.
Yeh I think you've nailed it mate...You forgot the flea ridden tick infested ferret nosed shit stain bit.
It's not about trusting me, it's thinking about how this itk poster could make this claim at all, with perfect insight as to how the IC will rule, then claiming zero ambiguity will follow. He could be right, but I haven't seen an explanation as to how he could be.I never trust any poster who has been here 10 years with 47 posts and suddenly has a lot to say.
You'll get a lot of stick for your posts but that is a very good point.It's not about trusting me, it's thinking about how this itk poster could make this claim at all, with perfect insight as to how the IC will rule, then claiming zero ambiguity will follow. He could be right, but I haven't seen an explanation as to how he could be.
It's opinions though, isn't it? Someone at the club or tolmie believes there will be zero ambiguity. There is no perfect insight because there can't be.It's not about trusting me, it's thinking about how this itk poster could make this claim at all, with perfect insight as to how the IC will rule, then claiming zero ambiguity will follow. He could be right, but I haven't seen an explanation as to how he could be.
Right - unless the IC has talked to this person directly, before they've even had the hearing, then we should ignore it. Doesn't mean we won't be cleared, just that this person wouldn't know and would be highly unlikely the IC themselves even know how they'll rule at this point.You'll get a lot of stick for your posts but that is a very good point.
Unless it's all done and dusted now there is no way of knowing what the judgement of the IC will be in advance of it sitting. Certainly not in terms of it stating that they is zero evidence of anything the club have been accused of leaving no ambiguity whatsoever.
Except it wasn't stated as an opinion, it was stated as an ITK fact.It's opinions though, isn't it? Someone at the club or tolmie believes there will be zero ambiguity. There is no perfect insight because there can't be.
Vienna?Zero ambiguity LEGALLY. Obviously there will be ambiguity among our many detractors. But quite frankly that doesn't mean a fucking thing to me...
I'm not reading it as a fact. How can it be. It's someone's opinionExcept it wasn't stated as an opinion, it was stated as an ITK fact.
I think the club would tell Pep to personally run the ball into our own net on Saturday if it meant non-cooperation, a smallish fine, and a statement that claimed the paperwork satisfied that that no major breaches had happened, all the sponsorship and player contracts were perfectly legal, and that the league and club were ready to draw a line under any and all previous FFP irregularities.I heard Simon Jordan say the other day that he thinks there will be a settlement so that both clubs can get out of this tangled situation that we find ourselves in,
But I don’t agree with him, I think we will want total exoneration and clearance of are name, I even think the non cooperation will not be accepted by us either,
Its win or bust for us on these charges, I actually think it’s a bigger result for us than whatever happens on Saturday,
If we do get a unanimous decision in are favour of a not guilty win, then I am gonna hire out Mary D’s with all drinks at £1:15,
That will really boil the piss of every cry baby rival lol,
Well it won’t be the turkey doing the gobbling !Xmas is going to be tense in their gaff.
Tolmie is very good for mood music from the club itself. I've no doubt there's people in the club that think this is a matter of time. But there were people in the club, and therefore Tolmie as well, who thought we all but had Bellingham's signature on paper. It's not done till it's done.Last year I remember Tolmie saying with certainty that Erling was coming to City. There were those who believed him and those who most certainly did not and were keen to make sure everyone knew it. Gradually Tolmie explained that he knew this not because of something he'd heard but because of something he had seen. Some time after Erling had signed he explained that he had seen forms concerning his medical insurance. This tells us that Tolmie is not an animated ventriloquist's dummy who simply repeats willy nilly what he hears but someone with contacts who listens and then evaluates it as evidence. This tweet is very definite, Tolmie is very sure and even though he hasn't identified the source we all know Tolmie well enough to know that we would be very wise to take it very seriously. I am certain one of the first things Tolmie has asked is if his source(s) is/are in a position to know or express a valid opinion and he must be satisfied on this point. Does experience show their opinion to be an informed and trustworthy one? If Tolmie is satisfied that the source is both credible and reliable. That doesn't mean that what Tolmie says will inevitably come to pass but it is to be taken seriously and is very encouraging. From me, and many others, thank you Tolmiw.
I heard Simon Jordan say the other day that he thinks there will be a settlement so that both clubs can get out of this tangled situation that we find ourselves in,
But I don’t agree with him, I think we will want total exoneration and clearance of are name, I even think the non cooperation will not be accepted by us either,
Its win or bust for us on these charges, I actually think it’s a bigger result for us than whatever happens on Saturday,
If we do get a unanimous decision in are favour of a not guilty win, then I am gonna hire out Mary D’s with all drinks at £1:15,
That will really boil the piss of every cry baby rival lol,
Maybe he's worried about the absolute state of the rags and feeling guilty for utterly breaking them (and klopp)Khaldoons weight loss?? Anyone concerned about it? He looks ill to me, hope it’s nothing to do with him worrying about these charges??
I just want this whole episode putting to bed once and for all, it’s getting to the point now where rival fans will not be happy not to just be relegated to the bottom leauge but to actually do a bury fc and go out of business with the shutters pulled,