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

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

I suspect we are in Ceferin's good books after the CAS verdict and the ESL failure. I am not sure they are the enemy. Sometimes it's better to play the long game than try to score points.

I know it's an unpopular opinion on here, but a strong UEFA and a strong FIFA are better for us than a strong G14 or an ESL cartel.

We take a very strategic approach - this is essentially, football's Game of Thrones.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Didn’t uefa get to choose one of the judges?

Well yes, but its supposed to be a panel of three independent arbiters. If two of them just vote the way of the party that appoints them, it makes a mockery of the whole process really. May as well just appoint one together.

 

[SilverFox2]

In the euphoria of the CAS decision I hadn't really considered this before but the thing that amazes me, in reading the CAS report again, is how ANY of the judges could have sided with UEFA. The scandal isn't that City were exonerated, it's that one of the judges thought there was enough evidence to support the AC decision. Incredible, really.

Perhaps because each side was allowed to choose one of the 3 judges as I remember?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Perhaps because each side was allowed to choose one of the 3 judges as I remember?

True, but ditto above .....

 

[SilverFox2]

True, but ditto above .....

Yes it does seem strange but a full legal Judgement against a CAS decision would have likely been a single judge would it not?
Perhaps this 3 makes the panel view every aspect even at decision level?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes it does seem strange but a full legal Judgement against a CAS decision would have likely been a single judge would it not?
Perhaps this 3 makes the panel view every aspect even at decision level?

Not a reflection on your post, but on my limited legal knowledge, but I have no idea what you meant. Could you mansplain it to me, please?

 

[SilverFox2]

Not a reflection on your post, but on my limited legal knowledge, but I have no idea what you meant. Could you mansplain it to me, please?

Sorry mate an early post for me.
I meant to say that CAS tries to be fair which is unlikely if one of the parties is hiring extremely expensive legal assistance and the other cannot so perhaps a panel judge selected by the disadvantaged party forces their view to be heard at the same legal level the other parties choice argues.
The CAS appointed panel member does the real Judgement.
Just an opinion.

A High Court Case relies on a judge and jury with highly paid barristers filtering evidence to load the facts in favour of one or the other.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sorry mate an early post for me.
I meant to say that CAS tries to be fair which is unlikely if one of the parties is hiring extremely expensive legal assistance and the other cannot so perhaps a panel judge selected by the disadvantaged party forces their view to be heard at the same legal level the other parties choice argues.
The CAS appointed panel member does the real Judgement.
Just an opinion.

A High Court Case relies on a judge and jury with highly paid barristers filtering evidence to load the facts in favour of one or the other.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I think it may be as well to remember that we are discussing a court of arbitration, and the aim of arbitration is to find common ground and a basis for agreement/compromise rather than dispensing "justice" or applying the law. I suspect the court could not in all conscience accept a crippling two year ban, when there was no evidence of any wrong doing and saw City's refusal to "cooperate" with UEFA's process as a consolation prize to save face for UEFA. We have seen how Jordan et al have seized on this to continue claiming City's "guilt". A real compromise!

 

[Centurions]

Sorry mate an early post for me.
I meant to say that CAS tries to be fair which is unlikely if one of the parties is hiring extremely expensive legal assistance and the other cannot so perhaps a panel judge selected by the disadvantaged party forces their view to be heard at the same legal level the other parties choice argues.
The CAS appointed panel member does the real Judgement.
Just an opinion.

A High Court Case relies on a judge and jury with highly paid barristers filtering evidence to load the facts in favour of one or the other.

As far as I'm aware (which may be very little on this subject) all 3 judges are equal, not to mention experienced and probably very expensive to engage.

Each side nominate one out of a limited list and CAS chooses the third. As @StillBluessinceHydeRoad says above, it's about arbitration rather than strict legalities and I'd have thought that interpretation comes into it to a degree.

If I remember rightly the CAS representative although picked by them was put forward by ourselves as an expert in the field? Didn't some of the usual idiots print that as proof that we picked 2 out of the 3 and that was the only reason that we got some of the "majority" decisions (while quietly ignoring the ones where all 3 agreed)?