Do others who argue the verdict was much closer than reported have a point then?50-50 I'd say.
They're arbitrators, they're not picked to represent us or because we think they'll do us a favour. I'm still not convinced what this 'majority' wording means in actual fact.
You're asking the wrong person bud, I'm no legal beagle. I'd be surprised however if so many points were disputed. I'll look through it later and see if the majority verdict was applied to something that there surely was no disagreement about.Do others who argue the verdict was much closer than reported have a point then?
My point being that we assume one of them arrived at a different conclusion using the same legal evidence. Either it was touch and go or he voted for UEFA despite the evidence.
All assuming of course majority in this case means 2 _ 1 in the voting.
Why are you presuming that the arbitrator we nominated voted in our favour and vice versa?But it’s surely not a coincidence City’s selected arbitrator seemed to side with us on all points and the same for UEFA and their selection? I find it hard to believe both parties got lucky with their selection, must be more to it than that but I don’t know the exact details and can’t find anything about it online
What is the role of the arbitrator?
An arbitrator is a nominated independent third party who should be experienced in handling the arbitration process. Their role is similar to that of a judge, in that they will listen to both sides and come to a decision. However they will also encourage collaborative communication, as opposed to an adversarial approach. Although no specific qualifications are necessary to act as an arbitrator, some legal experience is useful, as is industry knowledge if the dispute involves technical matters.
......just change two letters of his surname
I would say that for a layman that's probably the best way to do it, was going to look myself (but got side-tracked), be interesting to see if something does crop up.You're asking the wrong person bud, I'm no legal beagle. I'd be surprised however if so many points were disputed. I'll look through it later and see if the majority verdict was applied to something that there surely was no disagreement about.
Why are you presuming that the arbitrator we nominated voted in our favour and vice versa?
Again, they're arbitrators, not representatives. We had a dozen or so (very expensive) lawyers for that.
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/quick-guides/arbitration
Perhaps the disagreement was not about exoneration but about the need to fine us?Why all the angst about a 2-1 verdict if that's what it was? If a person is acquitted of murder by a 10-2 majority of the jury do the media go around saying "well two jurors thought you did it so you must be guilty"? It just highlights the puerile nature of the media reaction to City's case.
Well we and the media all knew so you'd have thought they might have noticed ;) (don't forget, this is CAS we're talking about, not UEFA who apparently didn't know about the Open Skies investigation).Do they even know which side nominated them ?
Surely it would be more transparent and fair if they didn't ?
Either way it doesn't matter, the majority verdict - if that's what it was - stands. CAS procedural rules make a point that they never report a minority opinion so we'll never know why someone may have dissented on certain points so I can see no purpose in speculating about it.Perhaps the disagreement was not about exoneration but about the need to fine us?
Perhaps our reasons to withold cooperation were greater than the breaking of said rule in the eyes of one of the judges?