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

Chris in London said:
I agree the tribunal probably thought they had bigger fish to fry, but City plainly did challenge the explanation of why the new rules on APTs were introduced. What surprised me was that these apparent concerns the PL and the clubs had about why the previous RPT rules were ineffective was given so little scrutiny. The tribunal seems to have ignored the possibility that the evidence from the redshirts and others was self serving, and they seem to have ignored the possibility that concrete examples of the RPT system being abused appear to have been non existent. As you say, there may have been reasons on both sides not to rely too much on UEFAs failure to land the RPT allegations re Etihad but it has been known for a tribunal to be all the more interested in evidence that both sides appear not to want to dwell on.

Since we are looking at three exceptionally experienced lawyers I can’t see how they could have considered the evidence the PL was relying on without being at least aware of the possibility that City’s competitors were giving evidence against City for reasons of self interest. Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied on was subjected to so little critical analysis. The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn’t matter.

Personally I can only find one piece of objective evidence that might be thought to justify the move from an ex post to an ex ante system, namely the length of time the 115 charges have taken to come to trial, and even that wasn’t subjected to any sort of analysis, eg that the PL plainly did
Click to expand...


@ Chris in London, I found your last sentence in para 2 a bit concerning, although you didn't labour it. - " The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn't matter ".

I also noted your comment " Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied upon was given so little critical analysis "

It reads to me that you considered it remiss of the panel - Am I correct in my interpretation of that comment, and if so would City's barristers not be able to challenge , should they agree with your reading of the situation ?
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
I agree the tribunal probably thought they had bigger fish to fry, but City plainly did challenge the explanation of why the new rules on APTs were introduced. What surprised me was that these apparent concerns the PL and the clubs had about why the previous RPT rules were ineffective was given so little scrutiny. The tribunal seems to have ignored the possibility that the evidence from the redshirts and others was self serving, and they seem to have ignored the possibility that concrete examples of the RPT system being abused appear to have been non existent. As you say, there may have been reasons on both sides not to rely too much on UEFAs failure to land the RPT allegations re Etihad but it has been known for a tribunal to be all the more interested in evidence that both sides appear not to want to dwell on.

Since we are looking at three exceptionally experienced lawyers I can’t see how they could have considered the evidence the PL was relying on without being at least aware of the possibility that City’s competitors were giving evidence against City for reasons of self interest. Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied on was subjected to so little critical analysis. The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn’t matter.

Personally I can only find one piece of objective evidence that might be thought to justify the move from an ex post to an ex ante system, namely the length of time the 115 charges have taken to come to trial, and even that wasn’t subjected to any sort of analysis, eg that the PL plainly did nothing while the UEFA case was ongoing.

However in the final analysis I don’t think they were interested in second guessing why the PL chose to move to a different system. They were plainly satisfied that it wasn’t simply a change made for capricious or bad faith reasons - I just don’t think they needed that much persuading on that.
Click to expand...
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
 
fulabeer said:
The problem with analogies is that they can over simplify. Real life isn't like that.

What if i visit your house on business. Ie i'm here to fix your boiler.
You ask me to remove my shoes/safety boots. I refuse on the grounds of health and safety.
You then refuse me entry and prevent me from earning my money. You don't get your boiler fixed.

Who's at fault?

The PL seem to think you should remove your shoes regardless if it is lawful or safe, because that is what suits them.
They are in a dominant position as you need to earn money. They know you know, that they will just get somebody else. So they are said to be "abusing" their position.

In practice, what you have to agree is a lawful solution that suits us both. That may be i wear "over protectors" on my shoes/boots. Or i lay down carpet protectors.
I can then lawfully go about my business, you get your boiler fixed!
Click to expand...
I reckon we should all go round to @Chris in London's house, wearing a variety of footwear, from ballet slippers to muddy wellies and see who he lets in.
 
I presumed the PL could simply introduce laws then just get them passed via vote.

Is there actually a procedure whereby it has had to pass all of its own laws in other words a vetting procedure where it's members give it a stamp of approval?
 
slbsn said:
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I’d have thought even a half hearted challenge raises serious questions where the evidence is as flimsy as that!
 
slbsn said:
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
Click to expand...

Does the record of the proceedings have to include everything that happened in the hearing or can things that, in the end, weren't disputed be left out?

Thinking maybe both parties wanted to leave the discussion around RPTs and FMV of City's historical transactions to the 115 panel. The PL, maybe, because they have a weak case that could have undermined their whole APT ruleset. The club, maybe, because the burden of proof switches in the 115.

And, in the end, the issue didn't change the award, so no reason to push it and maybe get an unfavourable ruling that affects the other hearing: the rules have been declared unlawful anyway.
 
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.