City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

KS55 said:
You can imagine circumstances in which useful info is excluded from a court case but not from arbitration panel.
Click to expand...

I was thinking de Marco meant more along the lines of excluding the public when sensitive information is discussed:

"Of course there will be cases where confidentiality is important: whether protecting the identity of an accused in some circumstances (as some anti-doping rules provide), or confidential financial information of a team from its competitors, or of the identity or details of victims in safeguarding cases, for example. But state courts have long been able to deal with such sensitive matters, whether by having some hearings or part of hearings in private, documents redacted, or some witnesses granted anonymity and so on. Exceptional steps can always be taken where they are necessary – but the starting point ought to be, and I hope in my professional lifetime will soon begin to be, that sports disciplinary proceedings should be in public."
 
halfcenturyup said:
I was thinking de Marco meant more along the lines of excluding the public when sensitive information is discussed:

"Of course there will be cases where confidentiality is important: whether protecting the identity of an accused in some circumstances (as some anti-doping rules provide), or confidential financial information of a team from its competitors, or of the identity or details of victims in safeguarding cases, for example. But state courts have long been able to deal with such sensitive matters, whether by having some hearings or part of hearings in private, documents redacted, or some witnesses granted anonymity and so on. Exceptional steps can always be taken where they are necessary – but the starting point ought to be, and I hope in my professional lifetime will soon begin to be, that sports disciplinary proceedings should be in public."
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that little lot pretty much include everything in our cases though (at least the 155 charges)?

The public court seems to have already decided we're guilty (ably steered by the media) so sod 'em.
 
When I want to listen to Di Marco's opinion on anything I'll pay him the going rate to give it.

When they're not busy taking x100K off business to circumnavigate rules (Anyone want to sell their women's team to themselves for 200 Million or a hotel to yourself for 270 million?) or x100K to find loopholes or offer reasons to the court not to prosecute THEIR clients (Shit on the hard shoulder anyone?) they then fall back on the "Publics right to know" bollocks when it suits them to further ingratiate themselves into the white van mans consciousness.

I have first hand experience of them and their like, I don't particularly like them, they are not amiable people. Their conscience, like their morals is bought and paid for, they'll say anything and do anything (within the law, allegedly at least) to win their case. I've seen them openly lie in court to Crown court judges and jurys without the flicker of even an eyebrow. I've seen obviously coached witnesses perjure themselves through their back teeth to propagate an untruth they created to incriminate anybody but their clients. Its necessary of course to be good at what you do in an adversarial field so lets not pretend this is anything purporting to be for the "good of the people" or to facilitate some better form of "justice" its for their proprietary usage, thats all.

The arbitration courts have run for many, many years without the sudden need for those pigswill nosing journalists like our mate Nick and the whatsapp group boys sticking their noses into everybody's business.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Hard to argue with any of that. The sooner the better.
Click to expand...
It’s actually a horrible idea for many reasons, but the biggest one is confidentially and trade secrets enforcement.

Making it public wouldn’t help with perceived transparency—in fact it would likely make the situation far worse, as so much would have to be actively suppressed or taken to private chamber to ensure all parties are protected that the conspiracies would go in to overdrive about how one party was being favoured over the other or, in our case, how we were not being forthright and “again” working to obstruct due process.

This isn’t a criminal trial, where all facts (barring confidential sources or protected victims) need to be aired for legitimacy (and meeting of constitutional requirements). It is is high level arbitration involving business interests/livelihoods and regulators, which means it involves quite a lot of information that should be protected, whether it is us or some other club.

If this is made public than all sport arbitration should be made public and I imagine that would be an exceedingly unpopular proposal with even our biggest critics.
 
SebastianBlue said:
It’s actually a horrible idea for many reasons, but the biggest one is confidentially and trade secrets enforcement.

Making it public wouldn’t help with perceived transparency—in fact it would likely make the situation far worse, as so much would have to be actively suppressed or taken to private chamber to ensure all parties are protected that the conspiracies would go in to overdrive about how one party was being favoured over the other or, in our case, how we were not being forthright and “again” working to obstruct due process.

This isn’t a criminal trial, where all facts (barring confidential sources or protected victims) need to be aired for legitimacy (and meeting of constitutional requirements). It is is high level arbitration involving business interests/livelihoods and regulators, which means it involves quite a lot of information that should be protected, whether it is us or some other club.

If this is made public than all sport arbitration should be made public and I imagine that would be an exceedingly unpopular proposal with even our biggest critics.
Click to expand...

He was referring to all sport arbitration and he is suggesting that it will come to pass in the next few years. His opinion, I suppose, but one to which it is worth listening. My opinion as well, not that that is worth as much :)

Public as a default with exceptions for commercially sensitive information and the like. Sounds better to me than blanket secrecy.

Not sure I see too many trade secrets in the cases between the club and the PL either, tbh. The PL's allegations against the club, as far as we know, are largely specific accounting allegations. The club's claim against the PL is based around a technical competition law argument.

Doesn't really matter, of course, nothing is going to change in the club's two cases, but one to watch, I think. Then we will really see if De Marco is the Lionel Messi of sport law, or its Harry Maguire. :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
He was referring to all sport arbitration and he is suggesting that it will come to pass in the next few years. His opinion, I suppose, but one to which it is worth listening. My opinion as well, not that that is worth as much :)

Public as a default with exceptions for commercially sensitive information and the like. Sounds better to me than blanket secrecy.

Not sure I see too many trade secrets in the cases between the club and the PL either, tbh. The PL's allegations against the club, as far as we know, are largely specific accounting allegations. The club's claim against the PL is based around a technical competition law argument.

Doesn't really matter, of course, nothing is going to change in the club's two cases, but one to watch, I think. Then we will really see if De Marco is the Lionel Messi of sport law, or its Harry Maguire. :)
Click to expand...
He’s Pogba, a very expensive waste of space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.