halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,378
Yes, you remember rightly and yes, that's also right. Usual idiots is also right. So a hat-trick of rightness.
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.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
Yes, you remember rightly and yes, that's also right. Usual idiots is also right. So a hat-trick of rightness.
There's no requirement for arbitration to find some middle ground between the parties. Are people confusing it with mediation? It's perfectly common for an arbitral tribunal to come down fully on the side of one party.
Arbitration is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution that avoids litigation through state courts by having a dispute examined by a neutral party or tribunal. In general, an arbitration decision is usually binding with no right of appeal, and the procedure is usually streamlined as compared with litigation. As a result, matters tend to be resolved more quickly and at lower cost, so it's a popular choice among parties to contracts.
In City's case at CAS, I think that a big issue was that UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so here, obviously.
I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas is an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knows full well which side his bread's buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, didn't his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produce a jaw-droppingly inept, but very revealing, analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it?
As for the chairman of the panel, the rules stated that he'd be chosen by agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, by the CAS itself. We put forward a name for the third, i.e. 'neutral', arbitrator and UEFA consented. Idiots such as Tony Evans - who has zero informed perspective on this but was mouthpiece of our enemies - later cited that fact as showing UEFA failed to put their full effort into their defence before the CAS.
Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
Arbitration is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution that avoids litigation through state courts by having a dispute examined by a neutral party or tribunal. In general, an arbitration decision is usually binding with no right of appeal, and the procedure is usually streamlined as compared with litigation. As a result, matters tend to be resolved more quickly and at lower cost, so it's a popular choice among parties to contracts.
In City's case at CAS, I think that a big issue was that UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so here, obviously.
I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas is an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knows full well which side his bread's buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, didn't his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produce a jaw-droppingly inept, but very revealing, analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it?
As for the chairman of the panel, the rules stated that he'd be chosen by agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, by the CAS itself. We put forward a name for the third, i.e. 'neutral', arbitrator and UEFA consented. Idiots such as Tony Evans - who has zero informed perspective on this but was mouthpiece of our enemies - later cited that fact as showing UEFA failed to put their full effort into their defence before the CAS.
Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
BringBackSwales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 33,650
I was responding to a post that said it was surprising that one of the judges found in favour of uefa and was explaining why that might have been the case. I wasn’t saying it was a good processWell 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.
Haas’s trainee claimed that his analysis was completely separate from that of his boss, indeed that they had never spoken about the matter. Go tell the Marines, I say.There's no requirement for arbitration to find some middle ground between the parties. Are people confusing it with mediation? It's perfectly common for an arbitral tribunal to come down fully on the side of one party.
Arbitration is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution that avoids litigation through state courts by having a dispute examined by a neutral party or tribunal. In general, an arbitration decision is usually binding with no right of appeal, and the procedure is usually streamlined as compared with litigation. As a result, matters tend to be resolved more quickly and at lower cost, so it's a popular choice among parties to contracts.
In City's case at CAS, I think that a big issue was that UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so here, obviously.
I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas is an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knows full well which side his bread's buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, didn't his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produce a jaw-droppingly inept, but very revealing, analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it?
As for the chairman of the panel, the rules stated that he'd be chosen by agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, by the CAS itself. We put forward a name for the third, i.e. 'neutral', arbitrator and UEFA consented. Idiots such as Tony Evans - who has zero informed perspective on this but was mouthpiece of our enemies - later cited that fact as showing UEFA failed to put their full effort into their defence before the CAS.
Finally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
It is a bit of a mystery as to how Haas came to the conclusion that doctored emails (the doctoring making them useless even as evidence of conversations) were cogent evidence of wrongdoing in the absence of any connection from the mails to actual actions.
As to the fine, I agree it was necessary. The UEFA rule that respondents must give all and any documents to them seems like we were required to seek out evidence to convict ourselves, a unique rule in world sport at that time. I think the premier league now has an equivalent rule.
Last edited:
Wasn‘t the only unanimous vote the decision on the fine?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)?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Don't recall I'm afraid, the full decision link is below but it's not searchable and damned if I can find a decent free convertor excepting dodgy looking sites.Wasn‘t the only unanimous vote the decision on the fine?
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
UEFA’s ethics committee was going to open an investigation into where the press leaks were coming from whilst the FFP investigation into City was ongoing and it never came to fruitionFinally, I find myself in agreement with the CAS that we had to be fined for non-cooperation with UEFA. I understand why we took that stance, and indeed supported it at the time, but it would have make a nonsense of UEFA's investigatory powers in future cases if we'd not been sanctioned. Nobody would ever cooperate with them again, even where UEFA was demonstrably correct and not conducting the kind of lamentable kangaroo court that we saw in the case of MCFC.
I wonder if UEFA and City came to an agreement of City not paying the fine if the Ethics investigation was dropped
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,837
UEFA’s ethics committee was going to open an investigation into where the press leaks were coming from whilst the FFP investigation into City was ongoing and it never came to fruition
I wonder if UEFA and City came to an agreement of City not paying the fine if the Ethics investigation was dropped
I think we’d prefer the fine & im sure plenty at uefa prefer the cash.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,342
The inquiry went nowhere but in unrelated news Rick Parry left his job at UEFA at that exact point to go and run the Southern Isthmian League (or some such).UEFA’s ethics committee was going to open an investigation into where the press leaks were coming from whilst the FFP investigation into City was ongoing and it never came to fruition
I wonder if UEFA and City came to an agreement of City not paying the fine if the Ethics investigation was dropped
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
True. And you wonder whether UEFA shoved him out the door as some sort of compromise with City regarding our complaint about the leaks.The inquiry went nowhere but in unrelated news Rick Parry left his job at UEFA at that exact point to go and run the Southern Isthmian League (or some such).