Not realistically. But in any event, it didn't happen.
There is nothing happening other than the 2 sides waiting for a decision
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
There is nothing happening other than the 2 sides waiting for a decision
The panel are still writing up the decision (could have changed since last week of course). The extent of deliberating is unclear to anyone outside of the panel. Nothing happened in March/April.I would say it's well inside your area of expertise to know that it's not a "trial"!
But setting that aside, it seems pretty improbable that the panel are still sat there ruminating on the evidence and trying to make up their minds on the charges. I simply don't believe that the issues were that complicated that it needs a year to consider them.
I'm still of the opinion that something happened in March/April that had a material bearing on the outcome. Let's assume you're right; what might have occasioned that?
There is nothing happening other than the 2 sides waiting for a decision
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I know they are as I've been tangentially involved in a couple. Our investigation and hearing were covered by the rules of a private member organisation rather than the traditional judicial processes carried out in a recognised court of law but let's not split hairs.Contested initial civil proceedings are a trial. Any subsequent proceedings challenging the outcome are an appeal.
So yes, a trial.
Civil trials are a thing.
I'm more interested in why you think a hearing carried out under those private rules, before 3 professionals, which largely mirrors the arbitration process, should be stopped and end up in arbitration within the full legal process under the Arbitration Act. Is there any mechanism for that under the PL rules and what would be the benefit?
In theory, there could be a dispute about the process under rule W (City's regime) that went to rule X arbitration which then went to appeal at the High Court. It happened before the charges (the Justice Males stuff). In theory it could happen again. It is a procedural decision not a substantive one. But it didn't happen. The hearing ran as is known and the parties are just waiting for the decision.I know they are as I've been tangentially involved in a couple. Our investigation and hearing were covered by the rules of a private member organisation rather than the traditional judicial processes carried out in a recognised court of law but let's not split hairs.
I'm more interested in why you think a hearing carried out under those private rules, before 3 professionals, which largely mirrors the arbitration process, should be stopped and end up in arbitration within the full legal process under the Arbitration Act. Is there any mechanism for that under the PL rules and what would be the benefit?
Never seen anything like it media gone crazy
Yep look on YouTube and every media outlet done a deep dive into how quality the scum were carrick has pep on toast nothing about a red card our back line of a midfielder a player who has played 2 premier games and Ake who is playing with a pain injection in his leg last few games Khosovnov was ok but he been here only 12 months! Oh and when we win it’s the opposition who weren’t that great!
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
The longer it goes on the more conspiracy theories there will be. The sad thing is that the likely truth (that it genuinely takes this long) might be the hardest thing to accept of all.In theory, there could be a dispute about the process under rule W (City's regime) that went to rule X arbitration which then went to appeal at the High Court. It happened before the charges (the Justice Males stuff). In theory it could happen again. It is a procedural decision not a substantive one. But it didn't happen. The hearing ran as is known and the parties are just waiting for the decision.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I accept it appears unlikely but the longer it goes on it’s perfectly understandable for people to hypothesise. It could only happen with the consent of both parties and it may be that arbitration gives them something that the other process does not.I know they are as I've been tangentially involved in a couple. Our investigation and hearing were covered by the rules of a private member organisation rather than the traditional judicial processes carried out in a recognised court of law but let's not split hairs.
I'm more interested in why you think a hearing carried out under those private rules, before 3 professionals, which largely mirrors the arbitration process, should be stopped and end up in arbitration within the full legal process under the Arbitration Act. Is there any mechanism for that under the PL rules and what would be the benefit?
Like I said, it’s not my area of expertise. I know enough about what I need to know to do very well for myself, without ever feeling remotely insecure about areas where my knowledge is more deficient.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,585
I know they are as I've been tangentially involved in a couple. Our investigation and hearing were covered by the rules of a private member organisation rather than the traditional judicial processes carried out in a recognised court of law but let's not split hairs.
I'm more interested in why you think a hearing carried out under those private rules, before 3 professionals, which largely mirrors the arbitration process, should be stopped and end up in arbitration within the full legal process under the Arbitration Act. Is there any mechanism for that under the PL rules and what would be the benefit?
I suppose the PL and the clubs can do what they want as long as they all agree, no matter what it says in the rules. Contract terms change or are waived all the time. Mind you, it would have to be the best kept secret in the football world if the Section W rules weren't fully applied in this case in favour of some other process and I am sure one or two people representing some clubs wouldn't accept it.
Oh, wait a minute .....
:)
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
That’s a good mindset to have; the opposite of “imposter syndrome” Probably referred to as “confidence”I accept it appears unlikely but the longer it goes on it’s perfectly understandable for people to hypothesise. It could only happen with the consent of both parties and it may be that arbitration gives them something that the other process does not.
Like I said, it’s not my area of expertise. I know enough about what I need to know to do very well for myself, without ever feeling remotely insecure about areas where my knowledge is more deficient.
I know what I know in my field but the older I get the more I forget unless I do it regularly. The biggest battle is which folder is it in!
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Yes, I don’t often get accused of lacking confidence tbf!That’s a good mindset to have; the opposite of “imposter syndrome” Probably referred to as “confidence”
Given the process is expressly said to be rule W (see initial announcement), it would probably need every club (shareholder) to consent to a change of process to a new "off piste" arbitration. Regardless, as detailed above, it didn't happen. It was all as expected - hearing and long awaited decision.I accept it appears unlikely but the longer it goes on it’s perfectly understandable for people to hypothesise. It could only happen with the consent of both parties and it may be that arbitration gives them something that the other process does not.
Like I said, it’s not my area of expertise. I know enough about what I need to know to do very well for myself, without ever feeling remotely insecure about areas where my knowledge is more deficient.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,585
I know what I know in my field but the older I get the more I forget unless I do it regularly. The biggest battle is which folder is it in!
You just described my sex life .....
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
ThanksGiven the process is expressly said to be rule W (see initial announcement), it would probably need every club (shareholder) to consent to a change of process to a new "off piste" arbitration. Regardless, as detailed above, it didn't happen. It was all as expected - hearing and long awaited decision.
Tbh I only read anything on this thread that you reply to, so thanks.Given the process is expressly said to be rule W (see initial announcement), it would probably need every club (shareholder) to consent to a change of process to a new "off piste" arbitration. Regardless, as detailed above, it didn't happen. It was all as expected - hearing and long awaited decision.
You mentioned earlier that the findings are now being written up ahead of informing the parties of a decision. In your opinion, when is the decision likely to be made public? Could this stretch into another season 26-27 ?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,585
Tbh I only read anything on this thread that you reply to, so thanks.
You mentioned earlier that the findings are now being written up ahead of informing the parties of a decision. In your opinion, when is the decision likely to be made public? Could this stretch into another season 26-27 ?
I can answer that. It's imminent and next international break is a good time ....
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
Yesterday would've been perfect if PL had good news kick us when downI can answer that. It's imminent and next international break is a good time ....
Let’s hope so mate!I can answer that. It's imminent and next international break is a good time ....
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Is it possible that some external information may have detailed the process? Something has come to light which impacts on the decision-making. I know this can happen in criminal cases.In theory, there could be a dispute about the process under rule W (City's regime) that went to rule X arbitration which then went to appeal at the High Court. It happened before the charges (the Justice Males stuff). In theory it could happen again. It is a procedural decision not a substantive one. But it didn't happen. The hearing ran as is known and the parties are just waiting for the decision.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
Is it possible that some external information may have detailed the process? Something has come to light which impacts on the decision-making. I know this can happen in criminal cases.
I often wondered if the APT findings and outcome would have had an impact of sorts.
They're humans at the end of the day - its highly likely they would have read through the judgement.
When City are (possibly) claiming there is bias and inconsistency and then another verdict is saying rules were 'unlawful by object', it must make you take notice.
DJBusinesscake
Well-Known Member
But we keep being told that the two are in no way connected and will have no impact on the 115 decision...I often wondered if the APT findings and outcome would have had an impact of sorts.
They're humans at the end of the day - its highly likely they would have read through the judgement.
When City are (possibly) claiming there is bias and inconsistency and then another verdict is saying rules were 'unlawful by object', it must make you take notice.