PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.

The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves

the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs

The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.

I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
Click to expand...
Herein lies yet another reason why the PL is not fit for purpose.
They will be wanting ‘the best in class’ to be their arbitrators, but they will want them to commit themselves to what may be an unrealistic deadline (until you’ve seen/heard the evidence, how do you know) whilst effectively giving up all other work, to sort out some footballing matter. Whilst the City case is undoubtedly bigger than any other case they are likely to hear, they still risk not having the best but ending up with their 4th or 5th choice, on the grounds of expediency.
Mind you, I suppose when the sitting CEO was, in fact, 4th or 5th choice for the job, maybe that doesn’t matter so much…
 
chris85mcfc said:
What's 'quicker' though?

It's a subjective term really isnt it

It could come out this time next year and that could be labelled 'quick' given the nature of the hearing
Click to expand...
Yes - I have always said that. In this context, my view has been April was quicker. So every day post that is longer. But likewise, we don't know because what if one of the panel was sick, or someone had a huge workload from January to June. We don't know. But it is starting to take longer than I think City expected. I do know there was an internal feeling they may hear in April originally but I am not sure it was based on anything but a consensus guess.
 
slbsn said:
Sensitive or commercial information may be redacted. It will be more redacted the more City prevail probably. Still expect it to be generally readable.

She was pretty clear on costs - if the PL lose, they can expect to pay a large chunk of City's costs which is ultimately paid for by all the teams
Click to expand...
Big reason why Levy is moaning
 
slbsn said:
Sensitive or commercial information may be redacted. It will be more redacted the more City prevail probably. Still expect it to be generally readable.

She was pretty clear on costs - if the PL lose, they can expect to pay a large chunk of City's costs which is ultimately paid for by all the teams
Click to expand...

I know it will only be speculation on your behalf, but in the scenario where the PL are instructed to pay our costs, would be that be the turning point for many against the red cartel pushing this?
 
Chris in London said:
There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.

The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves

the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs

The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.

I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
Click to expand...
If you cant take the whole of August off to sit on your veranda overlooking the twinkling lights of St. Maxime with a chilled glass of chablis, then what is the the point of anything?
 
Chris in London said:
There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.

The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves

the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs

The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.

I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
Click to expand...
On point 1. If members of the panel are working on other cases. Can they still bill the PL if work on their case is postponed. Or will they be getting paid either way.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Herein lies yet another reason why the PL is not fit for purpose.
They will be wanting ‘the best in class’ to be their arbitrators, but they will want them to commit themselves to what may be an unrealistic deadline (until you’ve seen/heard the evidence, how do you know) whilst effectively giving up all other work, to sort out some footballing matter. Whilst the City case is undoubtedly bigger than any other case they are likely to hear, they still risk not having the best but ending up with their 4th or 5th choice, on the grounds of expediency.
Mind you, I suppose when the sitting CEO was, in fact, 4th or 5th choice for the job, maybe that doesn’t matter so much…
Click to expand...
What does a fit for purpose Premier League look like? A closed shop organisation whose compliance rules try to balance the competing demands of fair competition, obscene money and culturally misaligned and impatient owners. An honest question.
 
schfc6 said:
I know it will only be speculation on your behalf, but in the scenario where the PL are instructed to pay our costs, would be that be the turning point for many against the red cartel pushing this?
Click to expand...
If the PL lose they will end up paying a proportion of City's costs and, of course, won't recover their own. We don't know the proportion but a convincing defence of the most serious charges would be "rewarded" in courts with indemnity costs (ie 80-90% recovery). The PL costs cases have not simply followed the court rules however.

I doubt it will be a turning point of anything.

Everyone pays for such costs. 1755590326135.png
 
Chris in London said:
There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.

The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves

the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs

The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.

I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
Click to expand...

On your point three - the new "timely" requirement was for Section X tribunals, was it not? And not replicated for Section W?
 
I think it's funny how the media are saying its going on for far too long. All they want is City to be found guilty and punished and all they are showing is frustration because that's not happened yet. They have all convinced themselves and others that City are guilty which is why they cannot understand why it has taken so long.

This concept of ensuring the arbitration panel can commit to giving the necessary time to conclude future cases makes it sound like the PL just want a kangaroo court. One that is more accepting of the case the PL provide and not taking into account the complexity of the cases.

We're frustrated as City fans because it's the opposite, we want the club to be able to clear it's name to get the monkey off our backs. We have trust in the club that they have done the right thing throughout and just want it sorted.

It's annoying but I think we will generally prevail and it's better it takes whatever time needed for them to reach that conclusion. We just have to be patient.
 
TShed said:
What if one or more of these retired twats die before the announcement will it have to be retried lol
Click to expand...
There is no specific Premier League rule that explicitly addresses the death of a commission member, but the regulations do permit majority decisions and provide a mechanism for replacing a member. Therefore, the likely outcome would typically be either (A) a decision delivered by the two remaining members, or (B) a swift replacement and a limited resumption of proceedings — not a complete restart.
 
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