PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
No change. I’ve always felt sooner better for City but recognised an extended period before a decision may be unrelated to the detail of the case itself and could, for example, be sickness or conflicting diaries of the panelists. But we are really at the acceptable limits of the timetable. 1 year deliberation in a privately paid arbitration is pretty ridiculous
Click to expand...

If it’s is a delay due to illness (I realise you’re just using this as a speculative example), then it must be a fairly serious one.

What would happen if there is a situation whereby one panel member can’t proceed to verdict? Do the other two make a judgement / write it up or do we go back to square one with a new process?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Surely that would be a JR rather than an appeal?
Click to expand...
No, the appeal is that you cannot be satisfied that (say) findings of fact are safe when such a long period expires between actually hearing the witness and then giving a decision.

It's not the period of time per se, its more the impact on the decision making process.
 
slbsn said:
No change. I’ve always felt sooner better for City but recognised an extended period before a decision may be unrelated to the detail of the case itself and could, for example, be sickness or conflicting diaries of the panelists. But we are really at the acceptable limits of the timetable. 1 year deliberation in a privately paid arbitration is pretty ridiculous
Click to expand...
My thoughts are (if there hasn’t been any delay re sickness etc) the longer it goes on, the more likely it is that the outcome is finely balanced and not a slam dunk for them or “irrefutable” for us.

Would this length of time also suggest an appeal would be very likely from whoever comes out worse? Surely if a decision is taking so long there must be a lot there that is finely balanced and therefore appeal worthy?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
If the Premier League were so convinced it was a slam dunk case, I'd argue the longer it has gone on, the better.

Certainly a slam dunk doesn't take a year to conclude.

As recently evidenced by the coach and horses City ran through these idiots over sponsorships, we are not dealing with geniuses.
Click to expand...

Coatigan said:
By the same logic, our irrefutable evidence shouldn't take a year to prove irrefutable?

It maybe takes a year because it just takes a year, and that doesn't have to mean anything for either side.
Click to expand...
I put this very question to a friend of mine recently. She's a retired barrister, herself (albeit, she worked on criminal cases and and very quick to point out this sort of case wasn't her thing).
Her take on it was that the length of time taken in deliberation wasn't indicative of any particular outcome being more likely.

"They're not paid those sort of sums to be expedient, they're paid to be thorough".

Rather than considering either side being embarrassed by timings of announcememts, the learned minds involved would be far more concerned about they themselves being embarrassed by not having done their job correctly.
Her reckoning was the best we can take from the length of their deliberations is a comfort in knowing that - whether we like what they have to say or not - nothing in the final ruling will have been arrived at lightly.
 
Damocles said:
It's sort of becone its own thing. If you dig through the thread, the explanation has been given a few times.
Click to expand...
I wasn't having a go at the mods, it just makes me laugh how this thread has covered everything including what you should have with a bacon buttie.
I presume the Mods have given up trying to keep it to the actual subject.
 
slbsn said:
The standard is not “without doubt”. It is on a balance of probabilities. I wouldn’t jump to your conclusion
Click to expand...
But isn't the balance of probabilities ruling guidance subject to the severity of the charges? I.e. Given the nature of these charges, the burden of proof on the Premier League will - in practice - be far higher than simply needing to demonstrate a 51% likelihood?
 
Lord Blue said:
it would be a little monty python like but based on your last word, have there ever been cases where a panel has seen legal proceedings against it due to length of time or rising costs. i mean, have we basically paid for an argument rather than a solution, not really related but curious.
Click to expand...
No doubt there are cases somewhere against an arbitrator (City themselves alleged potential bias) but not realistically about duration or costs subject to the point made by Chris about procedural fairness. We aren’t really close to that rn
 
mcfcphil said:
If it’s is a delay due to illness (I realise you’re just using this as a speculative example), then it must be a fairly serious one.

What would happen if there is a situation whereby one panel member can’t proceed to verdict? Do the other two make a judgement / write it up or do we go back to square one with a new process?
Click to expand...
I think if 1/3 died (say) it’s pretty likely we’d be in retrial territory unless the parties agreed otherwise
 
Chris in London said:
There have been cases where the length of time taken over a decision is grounds for an appeal in itself. But I don't think we're there yet. (The case I am thinking of in particular was almost 2 years)
Click to expand...

While you are here, surely those in the legal profession must have a pretty good idea of who the panel members are? There are only twelve to choose from, probably only six when the "lightweights" are taken out, and it can't be that difficult to match hearings and other dates with other workload of the likely suspects?

I may be way off the mark, I frequently am, but surely there must be a pretty good idea of who is on the panel by now, so the possibility of an unknown panel member with a long-term illness must be pretty remote?
 
slbsn said:
No - full details here https://open.substack.com/pub/stefa...theories-and-innuendo?r=2b1e30&utm_medium=ios
Click to expand...
Thanks, really interesting article.

Although does the below segment within your article not actually support my notion that the Premier League's burden of proof will practically be higher than "balance of probabilities"?-

"In English law, the general starting point in cases of this type is that people do not usually act dishonestly. It is well established that cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of discreditable conduct, reflecting that it is considered generally unlikely that people and organisations will engage in such conduct. This inherent improbability means that, even on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), the evidence needed to prove it must be all the stronger. The Independent Commission will also need to be mindful of the seriousness of the allegations made by the Premier League against the many individuals implicated as well as the seriousness of the consequences, or potential consequences, of the proof of the allegation for those individuals because of the improbability that a person would risk such consequences.

Broadly, the Independent Commission will adhere to the way CAS considered the point – it said in its judgment: “considering the particularly severe nature of the allegations in the present proceedings, the evidence supporting such allegation must be particularly cogent.”"
 
Leech said:
Thanks, really interesting article.

Although does the below segment within your article not actually support my notion that the Premier League's burden of proof will practically be higher than "balance of probabilities"?-

"In English law, the general starting point in cases of this type is that people do not usually act dishonestly. It is well established that cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of discreditable conduct, reflecting that it is considered generally unlikely that people and organisations will engage in such conduct. This inherent improbability means that, even on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), the evidence needed to prove it must be all the stronger. The Independent Commission will also need to be mindful of the seriousness of the allegations made by the Premier League against the many individuals implicated as well as the seriousness of the consequences, or potential consequences, of the proof of the allegation for those individuals because of the improbability that a person would risk such consequences.

Broadly, the Independent Commission will adhere to the way CAS considered the point – it said in its judgment: “considering the particularly severe nature of the allegations in the present proceedings, the evidence supporting such allegation must be particularly cogent.”"
Click to expand...

It's the lioness in Regent's Park question.

But yes, I understand your point. To a layman, such as myself, the requirement for particularly cogent evidence makes proving a serious allegation more difficult. Which, I think, was your point when it is stripped of legalese.

But I will say this, it's the standard of proof, not the burden of proof. I got blasted for that on here (what seems like a lifetime ago) probably when discussing this very issue of standard of proof :)
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
While you are here, surely those in the legal profession must have a pretty good idea of who the panel members are? There are only twelve to choose from, probably only six when the "lightweights" are taken out, and it can't be that difficult to match hearings and other dates with other workload of the likely suspects?

I may be way off the mark, I frequently am, but surely there must be a pretty good idea of who is on the panel by now, so the possibility of an unknown panel member with a long-term illness must be pretty remote?
Click to expand...

No. There is generally a very good idea of the quality of the tribunal - the APT decision is a useful benchmark, consisting of one former supreme court judge, one former high court judge and one former judge at the ECJ. Think also the Leicester appeal board, which consisted of two former Court of Appeal judges and one leading KC.

There are however quite a few practising KCs on the list whose availability must be much more limited than the retired judges. If one started a three month trial in early 2025 that will have limited their availability to deal with this. That of course is speculation. I remain of the view that the most likely explanation for the delay is just that it's complicated, it's going to be pored over at great length, and it's likely to be bristling with points of law and fact.

It's also quite likely to be one of the most scrutinised judicial decisions ever. You'd want to get it right.
 
Leech said:
Thanks, really interesting article.

Although does the below segment within your article not actually support my notion that the Premier League's burden of proof will practically be higher than "balance of probabilities"?-

"In English law, the general starting point in cases of this type is that people do not usually act dishonestly. It is well established that cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of discreditable conduct, reflecting that it is considered generally unlikely that people and organisations will engage in such conduct. This inherent improbability means that, even on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities), the evidence needed to prove it must be all the stronger. The Independent Commission will also need to be mindful of the seriousness of the allegations made by the Premier League against the many individuals implicated as well as the seriousness of the consequences, or potential consequences, of the proof of the allegation for those individuals because of the improbability that a person would risk such consequences.

Broadly, the Independent Commission will adhere to the way CAS considered the point – it said in its judgment: “considering the particularly severe nature of the allegations in the present proceedings, the evidence supporting such allegation must be particularly cogent.”"
Click to expand...
It’s regularly debated and articulated in various ways. But it’s still BoP.
 
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