kaz7
Well-Known Member
Ha we know they wouldnt,they were on a mission
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
The two sides agree to pick the chairman.
City as the defendant selected him and Uefa agreed with the selection
If they didn't agree,cas would have chosen the chairman.
Chairman was chosen from a CAS list by the way.
abu13
Well-Known Member
CAS actually said that if City had provided the evidence to UEFA that was presented at the CAS hearing, that UEFA may themselves have reached the same not proven decision
Exactly this is a point i was making.
In many ways refusing to deal with Uefa has been a master stroke on our part, the two options were.
1. Assist the Uefa investigation knowing they were leaking information like a sieve and beholding to the whims of the G14.
2. With hold the information and allow the case to go to an independent respected body and then show the facts.
If we had gone with option 1 I believe we may have been cleared but it would have been framed that we got away on a technicality, the reality now is that there has been a full investigation and all that can be levelled at us is that we wouldn't help Uefa to shaft us.
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
The two sides agree to pick the chairman.
City as the defendant selected him and Uefa agreed with the selection
If they didn't agree,cas would have chosen the chairman.
This seems correct:
Section R54 looks to be the relevant part;
If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel following nomination of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the parties shall only be deemed appointed after confirmation by the President of the Division.
It makes it more odd that the hacks are claiming that it is against the rules for City to nominate the President (Chairman)
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
Sorry to sound thick but, to be clear, City didn't effectively get to select 2 members of the panel, just who, out of the 3 would be chairman?
No.
We picked 1 arbiter each.
We selected the chairman from a list supplied by cas.
Uefa agreed with the selection.
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
This seems correct:
Section R54 looks to be the relevant part;
If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel following nomination of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the parties shall only be deemed appointed after confirmation by the President of the Division.
It makes it more odd that the hacks are claiming that it is against the rules for City to nominate the President (Chairman)
The rules are in black and white.
Its not odd when the hacks are desperately twisting to keep their credibility.
Ha.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
The rules are in black and white.
Its not odd when the hacks are desperately twisting to keep their credibility.
Ha.
I'm sure I saw some tweets yesterday about how it was against the rules and why did UEFA let them. Maybe it was in written pieces.
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
I'm sure I saw some tweets yesterday about how it was against the rules and why did UEFA let them. Maybe it was in written pieces.
If it was written,it was written by fantasist nob heads.
And you think the respondent's actually read the 85 page report and digested it.
I think my attempts at humour may not be working as well as I'd liked.