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

projectriver said:
No because it says, expressly, "X.37 Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final andbinding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act."
Click to expand...

Legal stuff is always a mystery to me. What is the position of the arbitration panel in English law?

For example, does the decision of the arbitrators set a precedent on a point of complicated competition law that the courts have to follow in future? If it does, isn't it weird that the decision can be taken solely by arbitrators (what happens in a later case on the same issues if an actual court contradicts the arbitrators' decision?) and if it doesn't, shouldn't there be an appeal possible to obtain such ratification?

I am pretty sure it doesn't really matter. They will come to a justifiable decision. But it all seems strange to me.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Legal stuff is always a mystery to me. What is the position of the arbitration panel in English law?

For example, does the decision of the arbitrators set a precedent on a point of complicated competition law that the courts have to follow in future? If it does, isn't it weird that the decision can be taken solely by arbitrators (what happens in a later case on the same issues if an actual court contradicts the arbitrators' decision?) and if it doesn't, shouldn't there be an appeal possible to obtain such ratification?

I am pretty sure it doesn't really matter. They will come to a justifiable decision. But it all seems strange to me.
Click to expand...
It sets no precedent to the courts and is private anyway. It could theoretically set an authority for future PL arbitrations but probably not.

If the parties wanted a court hearing, an appeal or a ratification, they would have legislated for it in the rules. They didn't, so it is tough. Except in the limited routes prescribed in the agreed rules. But excluding s69 makes it almost impossible for a substantive appeal out of the arbitration route.
 
projectriver said:
It sets no precedent to the courts and is private anyway. It could theoretically set an authority for future PL arbitrations but probably not.

If the parties wanted a court hearing, an appeal or a ratification, they would have legislated for it in the rules. They didn't, so it is tough. Except in the limited routes prescribed in the agreed rules. But excluding s69 makes it almost impossible for a substantive appeal out of the arbitration route.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thanks.

Still find it weird, though. But I find a lot of legal stuff weird. Obviously :)
 
Sheikh rattle and roll said:
All this legal stuff is becoming tiresome now isn’t it
It totally detracts from the excellent performances the team deliver year on year
The team are not getting the credit it deserves
It needs putting to bed this year once and for all
The biggest fight the club has been in ever
The PL are attacking its biggest draw - madness
Click to expand...
In a nutshell
 
This Savio deal seems strange to me. Wasn’t they’re a lot of noise about his release clause being around 60m. And certain clubs claiming it should be investigated if City pay a rumoured 30m. Now that deal has been completed for less than the 30m, why haven’t we heard anything
 
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.