lust overlord
Well-Known Member
Ha maybe.
But until the report comes out,its wishful thinking that other clubs have been denounced.
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
Ha maybe.
But until the report comes out,its wishful thinking that other clubs have been denounced.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
Who knows, the CAS procedural rules make no mention of asking for comments from the parties or how any such requests are dealt with in relation to the content of the full award document.Will it not then become the proposed new release document for both sides to comment on?
R59 Award
The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The sole signature of the President of the Panel or the signatures of the two co-arbitrators, if the President does not sign, shall suffice.
Before the award is signed, it shall be transmitted to the CAS Secretary General who may make rectifications of pure form and may also draw the attention of the Panel to fundamental issues of principle. Dissenting opinions are not recognized by CAS and are not notified.
The Panel may decide to communicate the operative part of the award to the parties,prior to the reasons. The award shall be enforceable from such notification of the operative part by courier, facsimile and/or electronic mail. The award, notified by the CAS Court Office, shall be final and binding upon the parties subject to recourse available in certain circumstances pursuant to Swiss Law within 30 days from the notification of the award by mail or courier. It may not be challenged by way of an action for setting aside to the extent that the parties have no domicile, habitual residence, or business establishment in Switzerland and that they have expressly excluded all setting aside proceedings in the arbitration agreement or in an agreement entered into subsequently, in particular at the outset of the arbitration.
The operative part of the award shall be communicated to the parties within three months after the transfer of the file to the Panel. Such time limit may be extended by the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division upon a reasoned request from the President of the Panel.
A copy of the operative part of the award, if any, and of the full award shall be communicated to the authority or sports body which has rendered the challenged decision, if that body is not a party to the proceedings.
The award, a summary and/or a press release setting forth the results of the proceedings shall be made public by CAS, unless both parties agree that they should remain confidential. In any event, the other elements of the case record shall remain confidential.
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
Who knows, the CAS procedural rules make no mention of asking for comments from the parties or how any such requests are dealt with in relation to the content of the full award document.
R59 Award
The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The sole signature of the President of the Panel or the signatures of the two co-arbitrators, if the President does not sign, shall suffice.
Before the award is signed, it shall be transmitted to the CAS Secretary General who may make rectifications of pure form and may also draw the attention of the Panel to fundamental issues of principle. Dissenting opinions are not recognized by CAS and are not notified.
The Panel may decide to communicate the operative part of the award to the parties,prior to the reasons. The award shall be enforceable from such notification of the operative part by courier, facsimile and/or electronic mail. The award, notified by the CAS Court Office, shall be final and binding upon the parties subject to recourse available in certain circumstances pursuant to Swiss Law within 30 days from the notification of the award by mail or courier. It may not be challenged by way of an action for setting aside to the extent that the parties have no domicile, habitual residence, or business establishment in Switzerland and that they have expressly excluded all setting aside proceedings in the arbitration agreement or in an agreement entered into subsequently, in particular at the outset of the arbitration.
The operative part of the award shall be communicated to the parties within three months after the transfer of the file to the Panel. Such time limit may be extended by the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division upon a reasoned request from the President of the Panel.
A copy of the operative part of the award, if any, and of the full award shall be communicated to the authority or sports body which has rendered the challenged decision, if that body is not a party to the proceedings.
The award, a summary and/or a press release setting forth the results of the proceedings shall be made public by CAS, unless both parties agree that they should remain confidential. In any event, the other elements of the case record shall remain confidential.
So in a nutshell
For a thicko like me please
There is a lot of squirming going on at the moment, I hope the clubs that are mentioned in the report are shitting it at the moment.
doubt there’s mention of any clubs. Probably just stick to the facts they had to discuss - all related to city NOT fiddling sponsorship. However, possibly the criticism of UEFA’s failure to follow procedures & to investigate objectively is the sticking point
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,722
If that were the case, why find us guilty of non cooperation?doubt there’s mention of any clubs. Probably just stick to the facts they had to discuss - all related to city NOT fiddling sponsorship. However, possibly the criticism of UEFA’s failure to follow procedures & to investigate objectively is the sticking point
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
There's no mention in there of either party being able to request changes to the text of the full award document or how CAS deal with such requests. As I said, who knows?So in a nutshell
For a thicko like me please
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
There's no mention in there of either party being able to request changes to the text of the full award document or how CAS deal with such requests. As I said, who knows?
Cheers Lancs
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
It'd be nice if true, r.e other clubs shitting it.
But there's no way of knowing these other clubs are mentioned in the report.
Cant see other clubs being mentioned. The case was about us.
It'd be like someone being on trial for burglary and the judge allowing the defendant to bring up intelligence about a load of shoplifters, as part of his defence.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Person, woman, man, camera, TV.So in a nutshell
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Not the best analogy that, SR.Cant see other clubs being mentioned. The case was about us.
It'd be like someone being on trial for burglary and the judge allowing the defendant to bring up intelligence about a load of shoplifters, as part of his defence.
If City used it as principal mitigation for their non-co-operation with UEFA, which formed a significant part of UEFA’s original finding (and the final Judgment by CAS) then that is completely reasonable imo.