Pay the total lot in penniesI hope we have asked to pay the 2 mil fine in instalments! Don’t want to be failing P&S.
Maybe we could take out a loan to cover costs. It works for the other dodgy red clubs.
Debt = good business.
Pay the total lot in penniesI hope we have asked to pay the 2 mil fine in instalments! Don’t want to be failing P&S.
Maybe we could take out a loan to cover costs. It works for the other dodgy red clubs.
Debt = good business.
Random Precision said:Wrong
In your expert opinion, is this arbitration panel actually likely to give Manchester City an entirely fair hearing by taking a genuinely neutral perspective?They don't have that right. Clubs agree to arbitrateView attachment 127453View attachment 127454
Only a Court such as a Competition Appeal Tribunal can legally rule on whether APT rules are compatible with UK Competition Law, and PL rules and for that matter any governing bodies rules have to be compatible with UK Law.Random Precision said:
You do have that right, nothing can override any person or organisation to resort to law for a legal ruling. PL rules are not above the law.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************
Do your answers to RP mean that -
(a) PL `rules` are above the law?
(b) there is no right of appeal?
(c) to all intents and purposes, `rules` are `rules` and the PL can do more or less what it wants providing its `rules`, processes and procedures are followed?
If it is yes to each of the above, how and on what basis and grounds can City be successful?
His statement is simply wrong so the premise of any questions from there are in that light:Random Precision said:
You do have that right, nothing can override any person or organisation to resort to law for a legal ruling. PL rules are not above the law.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************
Do your answers to RP mean that -
(a) PL `rules` are above the law?
(b) there is no right of appeal?
(c) to all intents and purposes, `rules` are `rules` and the PL can do more or less what it wants providing its `rules`, processes and procedures are followed?
If it is yes to each of the above, how and on what basis and grounds can City be successful?
Wrong again. Keep going but it is not right.Only a Court such as a Competition Appeal Tribunal can legally rule on whether APT rules are compatible with UK Competition Law, and PL rules and for that matter any governing bodies rules have to be compatible with UK Law.
Yes it should do. Any clear bias or bad faith would give rise to one of those limited routes to court.In your expert opinion, is this arbitration panel actually likely to give Manchester City an entirely fair hearing by taking a genuinely neutral perspective?
His statement is simply wrong so the premise of any questions from there are in that light:
a) Parties can agree to arbitrate disputes as envisaged and protected by the Arbitration Act. The PL rules are specifically governed pursuant to English Law including the Act but are an agreement to arbitrate and not take litigation and disputes to court. The validity of that part of the rule book has come up twice in the English courts (Newcastle and City matters).
b)The appeal is only to the extent permitted by Section X. There is no general right to appeal to the courts or the CAT.
c) Rules are binding yes but the PL can't do what they want. They are a party to a dispute in front of what should be an independent arbitration panel.
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."Doesn't Section 69 allow appeal at the leave of the court (under certain circumstances)?
View attachment 127497