Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Yes you are correct. Good point.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City v PL | Legal Dispute/Appeal
- Thread starter skillman
- Start date
Lancet Fluke
Well-Known Member
Pretty obvious and predicable why we wouldn't want info in the public domain. Hopefully it's a good sign that they also really don't want the info out there?Yes you are correct. Good point.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Yeah that’s what makes me wonder what it’s about.Pretty obvious and predicable why we wouldn't want info in the public domain. Hopefully it's a good sign that they also really don't want the info out there?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
If it's FFP related then it's surely not to do with the Der Spackel e-mails as we smashed UEFA at CAS on that one, and I highly doubt that the PL would want to be torn a new one at CAS too. It could be something in the PL's FFP regs that don't appear in the UEFA regs that they've identified such as that rule to do with wages and sponsorship money - you know, the rule that conveniently got canned about 24 hours before the Rags signed Slab Head on mega money!
Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.
The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.
Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.
The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.
Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.
That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.
That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.
One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).
What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.
So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season.
Can you clarify do you have any feeling as to whether the arbitration has been completed ? And we have been found against or whether it’s only got as far as can it be published or not once the results or in the first is a lot more worrying than the later especially with our history with FFP which seems the most likely and serious potential issue
Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.
The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.
Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.
The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.
Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.
That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.
That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.
One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).
What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.
So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season.
Great post.
Although I'll admit the bit about how the appeal is an appeal against the dismissal of an appeal by the court of appeal to keep a previous appeal private, and the court of appeal doesn't know if it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal but will hear arguments about whether it has jurisdiction over the appeal at the appeal did make me think of this.
Minor point but that wasn’t my hope. The press would report City driving 31 on a 30 mph road. It was more that if it was FFP, one of the other clubs would have leaked it to do us damage. That said I think it’s likely FFP. Which means perhaps it’s a minor or technical breach as opposed to something serious.That’s a lot of appeals...not very appealing ;-)
If you are correct then it’s not great given that @projectriver was hoping that the reason the press hadn’t reported it was that it might be something minor despite it looking serious. Sounds like they just can’t say anything at the moment.
Surely questions will be asked now though given the publication of the document?
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that informative post, could this end up like Jarndyce v Jarndyce? ;-)Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.
The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.
Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.
The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.
Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.
That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.
That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.
One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).
What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.
So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,328
Thanks for that informative post, could this end up like Jarndyce v Jarndyce? ;-)
No.
Jarndyce ended when the estate ran out of money.
They will run out of money a long time before we do
:)
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Could it relate to the elements of the UEFA action against us that were time barred under UEFA rules?If it's FFP related then it's surely not to do with the Der Spackel e-mails as we smashed UEFA at CAS on that one, and I highly doubt that the PL would want to be torn a new one at CAS too. It could be something in the PL's FFP regs that don't appear in the UEFA regs that they've identified such as that rule to do with wages and sponsorship money - you know, the rule that conveniently got canned about 24 hours before the Rags signed Slab Head on mega money!