PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[paska]

It doesn’t depend on who you believe.

There is no doubt we initially refused to cooperate. That’s why there was an arbitration ruling against us, an appeal to the High Court and a further appeal to the court of appeal. This is material that has been publicly available for over 18 months.

Since we lost those appeals there is no doubt we have cooperated with the PL inquiry. The disclosure we have provided would apparently fill a skip. That does not mean that we were not initially guilty of a failure to cooperate

When the club claims otherwise and neither you nor I have proof of the claims of either side, yes, it does!!!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

 

[Chris in London]

When the club claims otherwise and neither you nor I have proof of the claims of either side, yes, it does!!!

No it doesn't.

The initial failure to co-operate is recorded in two publicised judgments, one in the High Court, one in the Court of Appeal.

City have undoubtedly co-operated since the Court judgments that held they were compelled to hand over the documents sought. City's public comments clearly relate to the volume of material handed over since those judgments were delivered. That does not immunise them against a charge of failing to co-operate prior to that time.

If you want to believe otherwise, fill your boots. I won't be responding to you again.

 

[paulchapo]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

It is and will be a stitch up, the same as the EUFA verdict was. At least we had CAS there.

 

[Stoned Rose]

After wanting us relegated they now want to be like us.

This is like trying to get a 6 pack a week before you’re due on a lad’s pulling holiday.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

It is and will be a stitch up, the same as the EUFA verdict was. At least we had CAS there.

If you don't require a legal qualification, then what criteria is actually assessed to make up the three-person body?

And why a KC to be paid so highly to do so?

I'm being serious, so suggestions have to have played for one of the Red shirts is obvious...

A football background, an audit background, a sponsorship expert?

 

[Chris in London]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

There are many situations where an arbitration panel only has one lawyer. If the arbitration concerns, say, disputed payments under a building contract, you might have a panel made up of an architect and an accountant chaired by a KC. In other cases where it is all about the legal issues - and ours might be just such a case - you might have a panel consisting of three KCs. So I don't read anything into the fact that only one member of the panel needs to be legally qualified. Since, on the other hand, a number of the issues will be accountancy issues I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one accountant on the panel.

We did raise in the court proceedings 2 years ago certain arguments suggesting that there might be in-built bias in favour of the PL in terms of how the 'members of the independent commission' were chosen. There have been since then changes to the way in which the PL appoints its commissions, and so the concerns we might have had about the constitution of the panel have in my view been reduced.

 

[blue ranger]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

Did you not say that 95% of the charges are off the table now anyway. Do you know which ones are left?

 

[halfcenturyup]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

As long as the other two are directed properly by the one who knows what he is talking about, then it doesn't matter. If they aren't directed properly, that is a different issue and probably grounds for an appeal?

A jury, after all has, almost always, no legal experience.

 

[paska]

I think what makes CAS independent is that you have a neutral chairman who both parties have to agree to, and then each side chooses one from a list. They are supposed to be impartial I suppose, but if you want income from being UEFA's go to guy, then you have to be "understanding" of their needs. I am not surprised pretty much everything was 2-1.

Now, the PL chooses its own Chairman I think and he appoints the other two on the panel (or I read somewhere the PL chooses someone and he chooses the three? Not sure). Anyway, is that better? I suppose the PL KC should be independent and so should his choices. But, on the other hand, the club can't contribute to any of the choices.

Make of it what you will. Seems to me it isn't truly independent if one party chooses all the panel.

To answer the second question, you have to realise the organisation known as the Premier League IS just it’s members. Therefore those appointing the chair etc are the clubs driving the accusation

Being tried by the accuser. Nothing impartial about that.