This is an interesting post but can you clarify the points about the High Court Ruling
The high court action I believe was about the PLs right or competence (if that’s the correct words ) to arbitrate and no about failure to forward documents and yes I know the cause of the PLs wish to go to arbitration
Of course it would be madness to think that City didn’t following the ruling and you would assume arbitration then to supply every thing that the PL requested but looking again at the City statement it sort of implies that all documents requested were supplied but doesn’t actually say that
The arbitration that was the subject of the High Court judgment, which was
upheld by the Court of Appeal, related not to the process more generally but specifically to an arbitration process that was initiated within the investigation to deal with a point of contention between the two sides.
That's referred to in para 9 of the Court of Appeal's Judgment. This specifies that "an arbitration [was commenced in October 2019] against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld".
After some to-ing and fro-ing, according to para 14 of the same Judgment, on 24 July 2020, the "tribunal rejected the Club's arguments resisting the PL's case that it was under an obligation to provide certain documents and information to the PL ... [and] on 2 November 2020, the tribunal ordered the Club to provide certain documents and information to the PL and to make enquiries of third parties".
That order was stayed while MCFC's application to the Commercial Court was heard, the club having taken action alleging that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and was tainted by bias. Ultimately the lost lost in both the Court of Appeal, so the tribunal's order dated 24 July 2020 will have come into effect.
None of this means that MCFC have a defence to non-cooperation charges, as others have also said. However, I've argued that it can be presented as a mitigating factor reducing the amount of a possible sanction if the club can show that, since then, it's complied with the ruling of the tribunal. In other words, it's done what it should ever since it established that it was actually was under an obligation to do so.
I agree that the club's statement doesn't specifically say that all requested documents have been provided. Y0ou'd have thought they have, but who knows? Maybe there are still disputes about the issue. I suspect, though, that they were commenting without having had time to digest the charges and wanted to put out a statement that generally expressed considerable confidence without getting bogged down in any detail.
