That's still how I read it and always have. I find it very difficult to understand how two very educated men could disagree over so many points when confronted by the evidence. The only possible way I think would be if both arbitrators had made their minds up before considering anything, and I'm certainly not buying that.The way I’ve read all of the documented facts & how CAS works means that initially the 2 our bitters (see what I did there) Get to vote. If they both vote the same, then surely this is a majority as the 3rd (president) didn’t vote.
Therefore by the same reasoning, it’s impossible to get a unanimous vote as the president only EVER votes if it’s 1-1.
Therefore EVERY decision at CAS will ALWAYS be a majority of either 2-0 (3rd vote not taken which may have made it 2-1 therefore majority)
I think this is backed up by the fact that every single contested point was a majority
ie majority is either 2-0 (3rd vote never happens) or 2-1
Its highly unlikely that an independent arbitrator would side with UEFA’s evidence of 6 hacked emails
R46 of CAS procedural rules.
"The award shall be made by a majority decision, in the absence of a majority, by the president alone"
It was 2-1, I checked with CAS.it means “at least a majority” as opposed to “requiring a unanimous agreement.” Ie that CAS will accept majority decisions.
it is like s20 of the Arbitration Act in England.
“Chairman.
...
(3) Decisions, orders and awards shall be made by all or a majority of the arbitrators (including the chairman).
(4) The view of the chairman shall prevail in relation to a decision, order or award in respect of which there is neither unanimity nor a majority under subsection (3)”
it wasn’t 2-0 with the president silent. It could have been 2-1 with the president against us but that’s obviously unlikely. Very few judgments state “majority” and CAS were at pains to say so on this one.
Your input on this topic has been amazing mate, but I’m not sure I understand you on this one. Possibly me being dim or a lack of any type of legal training, but how can you ever have a unanimous decision At CAS on each point if the 3rd person only ever votes if it’s 1-1?
By default doesn’t that make every decision at CAS a majority as you will never have 3-0 or am I missing something?
the way I’ve read it is that every result will either be a 2-0 majority or a 2-1 majority.
Surely the part in bold can’t be correct with the exception of the the co operation charge as that was the only we lost & the president only votes if the other 2 arbitrators aren’t in agreement....or again, am I missing something?
Not that it really matters as we have been EXONERATED :)
Your input on this topic has been amazing mate, but I’m not sure I understand you on this one. Possibly me being dim or a lack of any type of legal training, but how can you ever have a unanimous decision At CAS on each point if the 3rd person only ever votes if it’s 1-1?
By default doesn’t that make every decision at CAS a majority as you will never have 3-0 or am I missing something?
the way I’ve read it is that every result will either be a 2-0 majority or a 2-1 majority.
Surely the part in bold can’t be correct with the exception of the the co operation charge as that was the only we lost & the president only votes if the other 2 arbitrators aren’t in agreement....or again, am I missing something?
Not that it really matters as we have been EXONERATED :)
Safe to say Ulrich Haas was the dissenter and McDougall the dissenter on the coop charge.The way I read the rules in the @projectriver post a verdict requires a majority including the chairman so all three vote. So if it is 2-1 with the chairman as one of the two then that is the outcome but presumably if the chairman is the minority vote then it isn't.
Edit: just seen the post above so my question to @projectriver is whether my interpretation of the chairman being the minority vote is correct?
Safe to say Ulrich Haas was the dissenter and McDougall the dissenter on the coop charge.
Safe to say Ulrich Haas was the dissenter and McDougall the dissenter on the coop charge.
McDougallDo we know who our "choice" was bud ?
No, but it is probably unlikely that scenario arises practicallyThanks. My question was a more general one - if the chairman is the minority vote does that mean the other two arbiters are overruled?
Safe to say Ulrich Haas was the dissenter and McDougall the dissenter on the coop charge.
I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on this as a legal professional, but for a layman, that’s definitely not how it reads to me.The President makes his call - this idea the President sits back and lets the others argue it out is not right. So often, it will be 3-0 and a unanimous view. Sometimes there is a dissenter and they then say "majority of the Panel". In this case most of the key calls were 2-1
I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on this as a legal professional, but for a layman, that’s definitely not how it reads to me.
just one more question mate.....is it really feasible that an INDEPENDENT arbitrator would say that a few emails carry more weight than audited accounts, witness statements etc?
Or is the inference that the arbitrators aren’t necessarily independent, which would be somewhat worrisome for CAS?
I was at first surprised by any case no matter how certain the outcome legally appears to be, being only 70 percent certain when actually at verdict stage.
Initially I thought about new evidence or even super legal presentation. I now feel that judges are human and even though they try to always be fair, they must have initial feelings one way or the other.
These prejudiced feelings are presumably discussed via evidence between themselves to either agree or disagree.
Offset against this perception of individual fairness I note that at least one respected judge formed part of the final Chamber that found us guilty at UEFA.
Is it possible that amongst the Panel there are some who will be not as fair as others irrespective of evidence?
Possibly.Pretty much everything falls within 'possible'!
The fact that these smart businesses people are not of White European origin is equally unpalatable to them too.They have to keep the pretence going that we are sustaining our spending contrary to the rules because if we are doing it within the rules, then the natural assumption would be, why can't the other 'big' clubs, with all their history and big fan bases, match or even do better than us? The answer isn't very palatable for them, but is in plain sight - those clubs are run by poor business people whose only object is to take money out.
Our luck that they picked the wrong 6 from 5.5 million of them lol.I think it is just about possible someone could conclude, in good faith, that City’s approach was so confrontational and uncooperative that the inference should be that they deliberately withheld information such that the emails should be preferred as evidence. Perhaps 6 emails were not enough for the others but maybe 10 would have been.
Cheers mate. Gotto hand it to you.....you’ve been brilliant with the info you’ve given in a none partisan way over the past couple of months. Much appreciated fellaI think it is just about possible someone could conclude, in good faith, that City’s approach was so confrontational and uncooperative that the inference should be that they deliberately withheld information such that the emails should be preferred as evidence. Perhaps 6 emails were not enough for the others but maybe 10 would have been.