PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
But was the investigation right to proceed with charges when they had never approached CAS or Mancini.
Click to expand...

I don't think the rules allow the PL to approach third parties? They can only require the club to provide information from a player, manager or official.

I think that means they have to ask the club to get the information from third parties. If the club says the third party says no, that's the end of it. CAS is confidential, even for the PL. The award is the only thing to which they have access.

May be wrong, though, as always.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think the rules allow the club to approach third parties? They can only require the club to provide information from a player, manager or official.

I think that means they have to ask the club to get the information from third parties. If the club says the third party says no, that's the end of it. CAS is confidential, even for the PL. The award is the only thing to which they have access.

May be wrong, though, as always.
Click to expand...

Do you mean “premier league” rather than club?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think the rules allow the PL to approach third parties? They can only require the club to provide information from a player, manager or official.

I think that means they have to ask the club to get the information from third parties. If the club says the third party says no, that's the end of it. CAS is confidential, even for the PL. The award is the only thing to which they have access.

May be wrong, though, as always.
Click to expand...
It is English law process so they can approach third parties under the usual processes/requests. Some people even argue they could compel witnesses to attend to give evidence (they wouldn't do it but there is some that say they theoretically could).

But I suspect the PL would have used the non-appearance of any obvious witnesses (if any) to argue for an adverse inference vs City
 
manimanc said:
Fair enough mate.
Henry Winter is a weird one.
He's kind of stuck the boot in on us in the past but then we see him appearing on the documentaries about us praising us and oh we are fantastic and well run, can't make him out.
Then I'm sure I've seen delaney on one of these sky programmes about the club or a player and he was nice as pie, very complementary about us yet he can't stop himself slagging us off being sportswashers and human rights abusers.

I honestly think journalists on social media just play to the audience, who just happen to be red cartel wankers, and they obviously know that every shit story about us generates clicks and that in modern society a click or a like is the equivalent to a newspaper being sold in the 80s.
Click to expand...
Shills who maximise their income by writing positive stories about teams in red, and negative stories about us because that is what generates the clicks.
 
slbsn said:
It is English law process so they can approach third parties under the usual processes/requests. Some people even argue they could compel witnesses to attend to give evidence (they wouldn't do it but there is some that say they theoretically could).
Click to expand...
Theoretically? Section 43 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (which presumably these proceedings are subject) is pretty clear isn’t it?
 
There would, of course, be jurisdictional issues in attempting to compel most of the key witnesses to attend, in our case.

And, as a matter of principle, I'm not sure that it would be fair to punish one party for the refusal of another to partake in proceedings to which they are not an actual party.
 
slbsn said:
You won't like this but I speak to a lot of them. All of them are friendly to my face and very personable. Obviously, technical knowledge varies but not one is seething (though I don't speak to Harris or Delaney, for example.)
Click to expand...
Rag
 
slbsn said:
It is English law process so they can approach third parties under the usual processes/requests. Some people even argue they could compel witnesses to attend to give evidence (they wouldn't do it but there is some that say they theoretically could).

But I suspect the PL would have used the non-appearance of any obvious witnesses (if any) to argue for an adverse inference vs City
Click to expand...

Always happy to learn.

(Edit: Just to be clear, I was talking about the investigation phase, not the IP phase).

But then why was there the change in the (guidance to the) rules in 2020 (was it?) requiring clubs to provide third party information when requested "when possible", if they always had the power to approach directly anyway?

And to what extent does English law supercede / complement the rule book? Why, for example, does rule X38 which precludes arbitration appeals on matters of law hold, when that is provided for in English law, but rule W1, which clearly defines the provision of information from player, manager or official, doesn't?

These may be stupid questions, but the law is a mystery to me sometimes, as you will have noticed many times ....
 
manimanc said:
Fair enough mate.
Henry Winter is a weird one.
He's kind of stuck the boot in on us in the past but then we see him appearing on the documentaries about us praising us and oh we are fantastic and well run, can't make him out.
Then I'm sure I've seen delaney on one of these sky programmes about the club or a player and he was nice as pie, very complementary about us yet he can't stop himself slagging us off being sportswashers and human rights abusers.

I honestly think journalists on social media just play to the audience, who just happen to be red cartel wankers, and they obviously know that every shit story about us generates clicks and that in modern society a click or a like is the equivalent to a newspaper being sold in the 80s.
Click to expand...
While Winter has sometimes criticised us, he has more often praised us. I think he probably tried to be fair and tell the truth when he was with The Times.
But now?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Always happy to learn.

(Edit: Just to be clear, I was talking about the investigation phase, not the IP phase).

But then why was there the change in the (guidance to the) rules in 2020 (was it?) requiring clubs to provide third party information when requested "when possible", if they always had the power to approach directly anyway?

And to what extent does English law supercede / complement the rule book? Why, for example, does rule X38 which precludes arbitration appeals on matters of law hold, when that is provided for in English law, but rule W1, which clearly defines the provision of information from player, manager or official, doesn't?

These may be stupid questions, but the law is a mystery to me sometimes, as you will have noticed many times ....
Click to expand...
Firstly guidance is just that. Guidance. It is not a rule or binding.

Rules are construed in line with English law but if something is specifically carved out of the rules the law wouldn't intervene. The ability for the parties to agree to set their own rules in dispute resolution under their contract has been upheld historically. I don't understand why you believe X38 conflicts with W1. The parties are free to agree whatever rules they wish in their commercial arrangement.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think the rules allow the PL to approach third parties? They can only require the club to provide information from a player, manager or official.

I think that means they have to ask the club to get the information from third parties. If the club says the third party says no, that's the end of it. CAS is confidential, even for the PL. The award is the only thing to which they have access.

May be wrong, though, as always.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing stopping the PL from approaching a potential witness but the witness can of course decline to engage.
The PL has now put in a rule requiring sponsors to sign up to an agreement to give the PL relevant data if required.
 
Chris in London said:
This isn’t an arbitration
Click to expand...
I actually think whether the AA applies to disciplinary hearings is potentially arguable but under s43 as I understand it, compelling a witness requires the agreement of the other party or permission of the tribunal. City would not have agreed so I am saying it is theoretically possible if not practically.
 
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