PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

From memory, the PL appointed the chair of the judicial panel and he put the rest of the pool together himself.Then, once the pool has been constituted, the members of any individual tribunal are drawn from that pool. So one reason for drawing X rather than Y is that the panel is hearing a disciplinary charge against Liverpool, and Y is a Liverpool fan. Other reasons may be that there is an argument about discrimination law, say, and X is a discrimination law specialist.

I don’t think there is any real risk of politicisation because you apply for membership of a pool like this as a matter of professional status and interest, not because you want to join a witch-hunt against City, for instance.

Also, don’t forget that the APT hearings are arbitrations, not disciplinary hearings, and the process for appointing an arbitration panel is completely different. In an arbitration you either agree on a single arbitrator, or each side picks one with the third being chosen by the two arbitrators together.

For instance, in the APT arbitration the PL picked Lord Dyson as their chosen arbitrator, who has history for agreeing that a sporting body should be able to decide for itself how much regulation it needs (as he did with say the rugby salary cap case). Likewise, in the CAS appeal City and UEFA picked one arbitrator each and the third was agreed between them.

So overall, no I don’t think there is any real risk that the panel will be packed with conservatives, so to speak.
 
Nephin Man said:
Thanks for that summation. Could you just clarify 'the PL established a panel from whom the members of any independent disciplinary commission will be appointed'? While the members of the panel may be fine, upstanding individuals who apply the letter of the law, similar to the politicisation of Supreme Court appointments in the US, do the PL cherry pick the members of 'any independent disciplinary commission', or do the commissions randomly volunteer them. If the former, while it may ultimately be immaterial, it is not entirely foolproof.
Click to expand...
Sorry,the above is a reply to this post.
 
Chris in London said:
From memory, the PL appointed the chair of the judicial panel and he put the rest of the pool together himself.Then, once the pool has been constituted, the members of any individual tribunal are drawn from that pool. So one reason for drawing X rather than Y is that the panel is hearing a disciplinary charge against Liverpool, and Y is a Liverpool fan. Other reasons may be that there is an argument about discrimination law, say, and X is a discrimination law specialist.

I don’t think there is any real risk of politicisation because you apply for membership of a pool like this as a matter of professional status and interest, not because you want to join a witch-hunt against City, for instance.

Also, don’t forget that the APT hearings are arbitrations, not disciplinary hearings, and the process for appointing an arbitration panel is completely different. In an arbitration you either agree on a single arbitrator, or each side picks one with the third being chosen by the two arbitrators together.

For instance, in the APT arbitration the PL picked Lord Dyson as their chosen arbitrator, who has history for agreeing that a sporting body should be able to decide for itself how much regulation it needs (as he did with say the rugby salary cap case). Likewise, in the CAS appeal City and UEFA picked one arbitrator each and the third was agreed between them.

So overall, no I don’t think there is any real risk that the panel will be packed with conservatives, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. To me, while the chair may be of unimpeachable character and there are checks and balances within proceedings, 'independent' would be someone appointed by a neutral non-football body, not by the PL. If memory serves me correctly, the UEFA appointed CFCB was supposed to be independent, but leaked pro-UEFA propaganda damaging to City with the media keeping schtum that Rick Parry was one of the investigators. There's a lot of doublespeak in Foootball, e.g. Fair Play, Kick Racism Out of Football, etc. Also, an arbitrator considered impartial in relation to one thing might not necessarily be impartial in relation to another.

Anyway, hopefully that's just splitting hairs in this case. Thanks again.
 
I read this tweet at the time and the pessimist in my thought it was a strange choice of words from Pep - sentence.

Maybe lost in translation. I see Magic Twat picked up on it and was clinging to it yesterday still in his tweets.

 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
I read this tweet at the time and the pessimist in my thought it was a strange choice of words from Pep - sentence.

Maybe lost in translation. I see Magic Twat picked up on it and was clinging to it yesterday still in his tweets.

Click to expand...

ur a few hundred pages too late pal that ones already been done to death, we've had about 3 new conspiracy theories, 164 arguments, 19 outbursts and a partridge in a pear tree since then.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
I read this tweet at the time and the pessimist in my thought it was a strange choice of words from Pep - sentence.

Maybe lost in translation. I see Magic Twat picked up on it and was clinging to it yesterday still in his tweets.

Click to expand...

Magic twat is a vertically half cut avacado .
 
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