Stefan said thar he thought the german judge was the dissenter.We'll never know for sure whether the part of the CAS judgment that went in our favour was by a 2-1 majority or was unanimous. However, Stefan from the 93:20 pod - who was by far the leading commentator on the legal aspects in this case, with a perspicacity of analysis that dwarfed that of experts quoted in the media - went back over the language used in other CAS judgments. He found that these judgments often did specify that a finding had been unanimous.
So while we can't be certain, the likelihood is that one of the arbitrators (presumably the guy chosen by UEFA) did find against us on the main point of the proceedings. Equally, it's probable that one of the arbitrators (presumably our nominee) found against the guilty verdict and fine in terms of non-cooperation with UEFA's investigation.
The procedure with regard to the composition of the panel was for each party to nominate one arbitrator and for the parties then to agree jointly on a third arbitrator, the chair of the panel. We apparently made a suggestion, which UEFA then agreed to, and some of the journalists (Tony Evans in particular, I recall) got a bit hot under the collar about it, claiming that UEFA had in effect allowed us to pick two of the three panel members. Not much merit in the argument IMO, but there you go.
Stefan said thar he thought the german judge was the dissenter.
An interesting sidelight is that a junior lawyer in the same firm as the german arbitrator wrote a critique suggesting that the verdict was flawed and we should have been found in breach.
Oh, and he said he had not consulted his senior colleague, the arbitrator, oh no, he was completely independent. Go tell the marines.
That article was nonsensical, filled with logical flaws and bad faith supposition. I doubt the lad has a glittering legal career in front of himYes, Professor Ulrich Haas, the UEFA nominee.
IIRC, the quality of the argument might charitably have been described as "unconvincing".
fixedYes, Professor Ulrich Haas, the UEFA nominee.
IIRC, the quality of the argument might reasonably have been described as "fucking bollocks".
I never read it. Once I was aware of the source I decided not to bother. Just another brick in the jerry built wall. (See what I did there!).Yes, Professor Ulrich Haas, the UEFA nominee.
IIRC, the quality of the argument might charitably have been described as "unconvincing".
Dead right. I won many a debate by using the info i got from here and especially the interviews with Prestwich Blue. Clever people!It strikes me, looking back, that the arguments advanced on Bluemoon were far superior to anything in the press. A feather in the cap of Stephan, Colin and others. I enjoyed that time immensely and (check my posts) I never had the slightest doubts that we would be cleared.
I agree and enjoyed reading it immensely also, many thanks to those posters.It strikes me, looking back, that the arguments advanced on Bluemoon were far superior to anything in the press. A feather in the cap of Stephan, Colin and others. I enjoyed that time immensely and (check my posts) I never had the slightest doubts that we would be cleared.
It strikes me, looking back, that the arguments advanced on Bluemoon were far superior to anything in the press. A feather in the cap of Stephan, Colin and others. I enjoyed that time immensely and (check my posts) I never had the slightest doubts that we would be cleared.