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.
You probably remember the Merseybeats, Billy J Kramer, B Bumble and the Stingers, Eden Kane, Johnny and the Hurricanes and a whole lot more.
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.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."
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.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."
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.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."
@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'.
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."