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

[SilverFox2]

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?

 

[Maly]

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?

 

[projectriver]

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 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.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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?

Pretty much everything falls within 'possible'!

 

[Asa's left peg]

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.

 

[SilverFox2]

Pretty much everything falls within 'possible'!

Possibly.

 

[Blueboy73]

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.

The fact that these smart businesses people are not of White European origin is equally unpalatable to them too.

 

[SilverFox2]

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.

Our luck that they picked the wrong 6 from 5.5 million of them lol.
Thanks again Stefan for keeping our feet firmly on the ground before, during and after the CAS saga.

 

[Maly]

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 fella

 

[WRicko]

@Prestwich_Blue Do we have any idea what was redacted and what attachment was with held in the emails we provided for CAS and why that was allowed ? Could have said virtually anything in that section of the email. I thought things would only be redacted if they where commercially sensitive and even then CAS would see them just would not be in the report but that is not how I read it I read it as no one saw the redacted and missing attachment. Is that correct ?