City launch legal action against the Premier League

[TedofChume]

Thanks for below. Really interesting read and would be great if you can add the bit about the UEFA guy confirming all of this bullshit was designed to stop City from the beginning…. (Not that we didnt know that already, but have had many rags tell me im wearing a tinfoil hat over the years, when it comes to the cartel coming after us). So this debunks all of that noise.

One quick point, im sure i saw Stefan say the emails that are out there are not doctored/fake but dont have any context/follow up so are currently half a story at most. Appreciate this response was from a while ago but do you concur with Stefan on this point now??

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I will get on with your suggestions, but I've been sidetracked with some personal stuff since my last post.

 

[Alfie Budd]

The outcome will not be announced, decision may well come at a later date after the panel’s deliberations. All covered by NDA’s.

There is no panel. Decision is made by the judge and will be made public once he or she has deliberated. Could be days, weeks or months depending on various factors.
Edit - apologies for this incorrect info. Thanks to @projectriver for correcting me.

 

[projectriver]

There is no panel. Decision is made by the judge and will be made public once he or she has deliberated. Could be days, weeks or months depending on various factors.

Unless parties agreed to a single arbitrator, it is a 3 person panel. And the decision is by default not public. But if City win, we will know because they have to change the rules. May never see the reasoning though.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Devon Loch's National was won by E.S.B, both jockey's Dick's, Devon Loch ridden by the author Dick Francis and ESB's rider was Dave Dick.

Did a quiz many years ago and the bonus question was National winners named after food items, we put OXO and L'escargot, we were warned it was a trick question but had nothing else.

The answer was E.S.B, no one got it, everyone scratching their head, Eggs.Sausage.Bacon ffs:-).

He couldn’t make it. He was stuck at the temporary traffic lights on Bird Hall Lane.

He’s staying on his own.

 

[Stoned Rose]

There is no panel. Decision is made by the judge and will be made public once he or she has deliberated. Could be days, weeks or months depending on various factors.

Love it when someone is so confidently wrong.

 

[Alfie Budd]

View attachment 123014
Unless parties agreed to single arbitrator, it is a 3 person panel. And the decision is by default not public. But if City win, we will know because they have to change the rules. May never see the reasoning though.

Thanks for the clarification - much appreciated. I should have known better than to dive into civil law matters without being fully prepared!

 

[Stoned Rose]

View attachment 123008

@gordondaviesmoustache latest butler looks a bit of a cunny.

 

[mancboy]

View attachment 123014
Unless parties agreed to single arbitrator, it is a 3 person panel. And the decision is by default not public. But if City win, we will know because they have to change the rules. May never see the reasoning though.

If we are found to be correct is their a provision for damages or would this be separate to the arbitration.

 

[manimanc]

Love it when someone is so confidently wrong.

Ha ha this made me chuckle to myself.

 

[TedofChume]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this but Martin Ziegler at The Times tweeted this in February 2024 (see image).

So these ATP rules were amended in November 2023 based on 12 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions. Obviously all 20 clubs voted, but only 60% voted for the change, yet it was passed.

Rule 14.10 states a 2/3 majority of those voting is required. 13 votes would be 65% and 14 votes is 70%. So you need 14 votes to pass these changes. If only 18 clubs had voted, then they would have had the 2/3 majority. Obviously, this is down to how you read that rule.

If what Ziegler reports is true, I would expect this to be a point raised in City's current claim. Whilst I can't see how City could lose this point, a skilled lawyer could argue otherwise.

It's a crucial point because regardless of whatever City claim in the 165 page document, it's a valid argument to put forward ie not frivolous at all. I'm pretty certain the defence can argue to strike out a claim if it is frivolous without actually hearing the case.

That then ensures that "disclosure" happens. This is where the current case could provide City with a lot of crucial evidence fighting the 115 charges and subsequently claiming substantial damages.

So this ATP rule change could hand City the initiative in a way they never expected?