City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

johnevans said:
If, as I suspect, Lord Oakicokie of That Ilk is an FOC of similar vintage to me, I fancy that the 'Box Brownie' technology may be way ahead of his time and that the Daguerrotype is the format wherein his 'likenesses' (as my old Gran used to call them) are to be found..!!
Click to expand...
At 74 I`ve seen `em all mate. ;)
 
Vic said:
So - if the original tribunal has been meeting again (IF...) does anyone know what exactly they're looking at? They'd already granted City declaratory relief - declaring the rules unlawful so City won the case - but reserved the right to grant injunctive relief and damages. They didn't do that, instead saying that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in light of our conclusions.

So is this the tribunal hearing what the PL and City have already agreed then granting City the agreed amount of damages, or have the PL played silly beggars and are still pretending they won? (And in passing, the tribunal may say whether the new rules are lawful... And their original judgment should have clearly said it meant the rules were null and void from the start.)
Click to expand...

In my completely uninformed opinion, the arbitration gave declaratory relief on the issues put before it, but didn't consider the requests that they confirmed were made for injunctive relief and damages.

The meeting next week is to hear submissions from the two parties on those matters. By far the most important, I suppose, is, as has been reported, whether the APT rules should be declared null and void since inception, as the club suggests, or whether the rules can simply be amended for the tribunal's initial conclusions, as the PL suggests. That is a pretty huge decision for a few reasons, imho. Once that is all done, they will decide on costs, I suppose.

Why didn't they finish the job the first time? They said in the partial award that they wanted to give the parties time to consider what further relief is appropriate based on their initial findings. I suspect they also wanted the two parties to come to some sort of agreement on where to go next, but that was blown out of the water after the first 24 hours.

Have to see how the arbitrators view the PL's unilateral approach to things. It would have pissed me off if I was one of them .....

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Not pretending to know what is actually going on :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
In my completely uninformed opinion, the arbitration gave declaratory relief on the issues put before it, but didn't consider the requests that they confirmed were made for injunctive relief and damages.

The meeting next week is to hear submissions from the two parties on those matters. By far the most important, I suppose, is, as has been reported, whether the APT rules should be declared null and void since inception, as the club suggests, or whether the rules can simply be amended for the tribunal's initial conclusions, as the PL suggests. That is a pretty huge decision for a few reasons, imho. Once that is all done, they will decide on costs, I suppose.

Why didn't they finish the job the first time? They said in the partial award that they wanted to give the parties time to consider what further relief is appropriate based on their initial findings. I suspect they also wanted the two parties to come to some sort of agreement on where to go next, but that was blown out of the water after the first 24 hours.

Have to see how the arbitrators view the PL's unilateral approach to things. It would have pissed me off if I was one of them .....

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Not pretending to know what is actually going on :)
Click to expand...
Ahh sense at last after pages of rubbish, thank you
 
halfcenturyup said:
In my completely uninformed opinion, the arbitration gave declaratory relief on the issues put before it, but didn't consider the requests that they confirmed were made for injunctive relief and damages.

The meeting next week is to hear submissions from the two parties on those matters. By far the most important, I suppose, is, as has been reported, whether the APT rules should be declared null and void since inception, as the club suggests, or whether the rules can simply be amended for the tribunal's initial conclusions, as the PL suggests. That is a pretty huge decision for a few reasons, imho. Once that is all done, they will decide on costs, I suppose.

Why didn't they finish the job the first time? They said in the partial award that they wanted to give the parties time to consider what further relief is appropriate based on their initial findings. I suspect they also wanted the two parties to come to some sort of agreement on where to go next, but that was blown out of the water after the first 24 hours.

Have to see how the arbitrators view the PL's unilateral approach to things. It would have pissed me off if I was one of them .....

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Not pretending to know what is actually going on :)
Click to expand...
The tribunal was obviously hoping the damages could be settled out of court. But I think / hope that you're right, and that the tribunal will be less than happy at the PL's claim to have won the case - even if it's partly the tribunal's fault for assuming the PL's lawyers would explain to Masters that they'd lost. The less contrite the PL are, the more costs we get - and I'm not sure if they can add aggravated damages (for "the conduct of the defendant after the wrongful act was committed").
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
In my completely uninformed opinion, the arbitration gave declaratory relief on the issues put before it, but didn't consider the requests that they confirmed were made for injunctive relief and damages.

The meeting next week is to hear submissions from the two parties on those matters. By far the most important, I suppose, is, as has been reported, whether the APT rules should be declared null and void since inception, as the club suggests, or whether the rules can simply be amended for the tribunal's initial conclusions, as the PL suggests. That is a pretty huge decision for a few reasons, imho. Once that is all done, they will decide on costs, I suppose.

Why didn't they finish the job the first time? They said in the partial award that they wanted to give the parties time to consider what further relief is appropriate based on their initial findings. I suspect they also wanted the two parties to come to some sort of agreement on where to go next, but that was blown out of the water after the first 24 hours.

Have to see how the arbitrators view the PL's unilateral approach to things. It would have pissed me off if I was one of them .....

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Not pretending to know what is actually going on :)
Click to expand...
It would certainly have made. them realise that they have little chance to allow the PL to ensure their rules are legal before they enforce them.

The panel should insist any rule changes must be endorsed by the PLs legal company as legally checked.
 
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