CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

waspish

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 Jan 2009
Messages
48,240
Location
Blue Moon
View attachment 51796


Dont know if this is the right place to post but i wonder how this works. surley its a conflict of interest.

Thing is the way Americans finance these buys they don’t need to disclose who the people/companies are who loan them the money could be Saudi chino or Russia! But yeah it’s fine by the premier because the one buying are Americans!
 

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
1,014
I’m not sure there’s any obligation to disclose documents that support your case. What is the legal basis for that assertion?
Presumably you are making a semantic point. Parties to civil proceedings in England and Wales must give disclosure of documents relevant to the dispute. If you are a claimant you will obviously be keen to disclose any documents that support your case (there is an obligation to particularise the case which is bound to be by reference to supportive evidence - evidence that the claimant relies upon) but the point of my comment was that you can't withhold documents that don't support your case.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-08-06 at 11.03.41.png
    Screenshot 2022-08-06 at 11.03.41.png
    85.3 KB · Views: 54
Last edited:

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
1,014
I'd suggest re-reading the piece then pr, all the 'points' were copy pasted from your opening summary header.
Those are links or editorial headlines written by Mail Online. Nothing to do with me. The top 2 are links, the next 2 are fair reflections of my piece but still not written by me.
 

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
1,014
So Stefan its another year thats passed since you wrote that article and did the podcast which I found informative and interesting. I do have some experience of the workings of the HIgh Court having attended a few times as a member of an appellant legal team, which is probably why. As you say the matters are very dry, complicated and more than a little tedious. Very pleasant lunches at the Inn paid for by the QC made it more bearable.
As far as you are aware have matters moved anywhere since that time? You intimated it was likely MCFC had provided the PL with documentation they had requested, yet despite the insistence of the Judge that the details of these matters are distinctly in the public interest we've heard nothing informative since last year as if there seems to be an impasse. I appreciate as you've mentioned previously these civil cases move glacially but this appears to be more at a stop!
Again seemingly no charges have been brought and the evidential time limitations are another year further along. Does the limitation issues burden on allowable evidence affect this case in any way? Does not the older the evidence gets that may be relied upon create probity issues? Thanks again for your considered opinions.

@projectriver
I suspect there have been plenty of rounds of disclosure of documents and correspondence. The time limits are not about evidence though. Time limits apply to the breaches - for example documents from 10 years ago could be still relevant even when a breach is 5 years ago. The documents would still be relevant and permitted by a court. But any witness evidence from many years ago becomes less and less reliable.
 

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
1,014
At what point in time do you think we are clear in terms of English Law time restrictions?
Hard to say because we don't know what they are investigating or when the clock would be deemed to have started. In addition, if the PL wanted to go all in and say City deliberately deceived the PL and actively hid the breach all limitations would fall away (if it was proved (not easy)).

My guess would be any breaches prior to the date that was 6 years before formal commencement of the investigation would be time barred. But maybe later. Given the original request for documents was December 2018, that could still leave City open to challenge on matters after Dec 2012. But no doubt City would say the 6 years is from a formal "charge" which, as far as we know hasn't happened. That would preclude everything pre-2016. So who knows.
 

Cobwebcat

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2007
Messages
12,746
Location
Centurions 9301
Team supported
Manchester City
Hard to say because we don't know what they are investigating or when the clock would be deemed to have started. In addition, if the PL wanted to go all in and say City deliberately deceived the PL and actively hid the breach all limitations would fall away (if it was proved (not easy)).

My guess would be any breaches prior to the date that was 6 years before formal commencement of the investigation would be time barred. But maybe later. Given the original request for documents was December 2018, that could still leave City open to challenge on matters after Dec 2012. But no doubt City would say the 6 years is from a formal "charge" which, as far as we know hasn't happened. That would preclude everything pre-2016. So who knows.
Complicated but I think it’s fair to say that with each passing month its less likely City will be charged with anything.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.