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

I thought I read on here thst we chose one UEFA chose one and as we were the defendant we chose the president from a CAS list and UEFA had to agree with that choice, as they did, otherwise CAS would appoint a president if City and UEFA could not agree on the president City chose. I could be wrong.

Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
 
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
We may never know, but I dont understand how it would be quicker letting City choose the chairman rather than Cas appoint him if that was the regs. Both City and UEFA wanted a quick hearing.
PS. The Athletic you say, must be true. Der Speigels sister paper.;)
 
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."

hmm that's interesting. I assume a lot is being made of this? i dont read the sport pages much anymore
 
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."
The Athletic was wrong in saying that and Matt Slater accepted and corrected that. They couldn't have read the document properly or chose to ignore what it actually says, in favour of something that made a better headline.

Each side selects one arbitrator but there is no specific, documented or set procedure for how the Chair is selected. But the general principle in the CAS procedural document is that in the absence of any other agreement, they can be imposed by the CAS President.

In our case, the suggestion of Rui Botica Santos was made by us and UEFA agreed with that choice the same day. The President of the CAS Arbitration Division then appointed him. That's exactly as it appears in the full judgement so there is little excuse for getting it wrong.
 
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."

Ffs, why perpetuate the bullshit they spread as fact?
 
The Athletic was wrong in saying that and Matt Slater accepted and corrected that. They couldn't have read the document properly or chose to ignore what it actually says, in favour of something that made a better headline.

Each side selects one arbitrator but there is no specific, documented or set procedure for how the Chair is selected. But the general principle in the CAS procedural document is that in the absence of any other agreement, they can be imposed by the CAS President.

In our case, the suggestion of Rui Botica Santos was made by us and UEFA agreed with that choice the same day. The President of the CAS Arbitration Division then appointed him. That's exactly as it appears in the full judgement so there is little excuse for getting it wrong.
And there is nothing wrong with that! UEFA could have said no in which case another person would have had to be found. So City and UEFA AGREED about the 3rd judge. City did NOT select 2 of the 3 judges. This is simple Der Spiegel level twisting of words in order to harm City.
 
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."

"select" is a convenient almost-synonym which implies that it was unilateral. the "UEFA bowed to City" is just crap though - that's absolutely to create an impression.

We made a suggestion which UEFA agreed to and CAS agreed to, but it has often deliberately been twisted for effect.
 
@projectriver:
Sorry to bother you on something minor, but you may be the best to assess this.

The use of the word 'majority' is common in describing the panel opinions.
Should anything be read into the meaning of that? Is it always 2-1, and does it preclude 3-0?
I can't search the doc to see if they ever use 'unanimous'.

Don’t know if this helps - from CAS procedural rules


R46 Award

The award shall be made by a majority decision, or, in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. The award shall be written, dated and signed. Unless the parties agree otherwise, it shall briefly state 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.
 
Normally that is true, but on this occasion UEFA let us chose two. This is a quote from an article in The Athletic, i'm pretty sure it's factual:-

"UEFA also allowed City to select two of the three judges making the decision at CAS. Normally both parties choose one each and the third is nominated by the independent body which runs the court but UEFA bowed to City in their desire for a quick hearing."

The idea that City were allowed to select the presiding judge is purest bullshine. We may have suggested one, but UEFA would surely have been under no obligation to accept that suggestion. It’s just another load of half arsed guff dreamt up by Harris, Evans et al, to try and discredit the verdict
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
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.