City launch legal action against the Premier League

halfcenturyup said:
I'm pretty sure I read those names somewhere before the arbitration kicked off? They certainly sound familiar and I remember looking them up. Can't find it now, though. Maybe getting old .....

One thing is for sure, the chance of an appeal being heard is next to zero with those guys involved.
Click to expand...



There you go. Not going crazy yet :)
 
Oldham Exile said:
Really informative read that - and, unfortunately, explains well the challenge that CITY would have had in 'winning the day'.

Particularly unlucky that the same person chaired our case as chaired the Saracen's one and that there are such clear parallels for that chair to draw on - precedents that he made. Or were there not other options?

Doesn't promote confidence in a positive outcome and (if we are unsuccessful) when the announcement is made there will be 100s more tweets etc. jumping on an anti-CITY bandwagon. The messages will all be about us failing and 'being guilty' - even though we cannot be 'guilty' as we brought the case
Click to expand...
I’m sure I read/heard somewhere that City were supportive of appropriate controls and didn’t want a free-for-all. It was the discriminatory aspects of the rules and also the process of assessment that we were objecting to - especially the nominated assessor.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Rosen clearly, I would imagine it was a no-brainer in view of his experience. I also imagine both Dyson and our counsel are more than able to distinguish between the two cases
Click to expand...
I think there are crossed lines Dyson was the judge for the APT case Rosen is the PL KC who will select the panel for the 130 charges case
 
Gordyola said:
I think there are crossed lines Dyson was the judge for the APT case Rosen is the PL KC who will select the panel for the 130 charges case
Click to expand...

:D I sometimes have no idea which thread I am in. I think the question was about Dyson and the APT case, so I stick with my answer. Even if it is in the wrong place.

Btw, Rosen picks the arbitrators in the APT case as well, of course.

Edit: Just to be clear, Rosen picks the members of the Arbitration panel, but the choice of individual arbitrators for the APT case is more like CAS: each party chooses one and the two chosen choose the third, as the chair. Iirc.

Edit to the edit: Just to be even clearer, apparently there is no Arbitration panel to choose arbitrators from, unlike at CAS. Any suitably qualified person can be appointed by the parties. I think I will shut up about this :)
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
:D I sometimes have no idea which thread I am in. I think the question was about Dyson and the APT case, so I stick with my answer. Even if it is in the wrong place.

Btw, Rosen picks the arbitrators in the APT case as well, of course.
Click to expand...
The tribunal is made up of three retired senior judges: former head of the commercial court Sir Nigel Teare (Chair), Lord John Dyson KC and Christopher Vajda KC. Seems Teale was involved in the scousers v New Balance case
 
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.