PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

Not quite. We each chose one then had to agree on the panel chair.

That pool of arbitrators is a relatively small group of qualified people so we can't just decide that someone who's not on that panel can represent us. The story is that we suggested a name and UEFA agreed with that choice of chair. Had we not agreed, CAS would have selected someone. So it was a joint choice.

What is really annoying about that story is that snivelling snake Conn was the one putting it out there. The man who campaigns for justice, truth and transparency told a blatant fucking lie.

Conn by name, c_n_ by nature.

 

[slbsn]

Surely you can go to court, over the legality of a case against you, in any scenario. Which is what that article claimed, that it was a legal challenge. The court may of course rule that the case is entirely legal and you are back where started.

No - there is no universal right. The Premier League Rules set out what can and can't be challenged and how. There are very limited situations that could ever end up in the High Court. I've answered this earlier in this thread but even if City get an issue into Rule X (an appeal), then the appeal of an PL arbitration to the High Court is in limited circumstances pursuant to the Arbitration Act

It expressly says "Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act." So that leaves s67,68,70 and 71 of the Arbitration Act as routes to appeal to the courts.

67 is substantive jurisdiction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/67
68 is serious irregularity https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/68
70/71 are supplementary (basically process) provisions relating to 67 and 68

So, the ONLY realistic route to end up in the Courts is serious irregularity. It is almost definitely not ending up in the courts.

Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a)failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b)the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d)failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e)any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g)the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h)failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i)any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

 

[Metalartin]

One thing that I've been wondering about, is the terminology the press use vs the terminology the organising bodies use.

The press have consistently framed the der Spiegel conspiracy as an accusation of "falsely inflating sponsorship revenue". I've looked for any use of that particular phrase from both UEFA and PL and I can't find it anywhere. Can anyone else?

I think that is a deliberate attempt to further confuse the general public on what these allegations are actually about personally. It's a bad way to put it. Overstating sponsorship revenue, or any of the terms UEFA and the PL have used to describe the allegations are much clearer and to the point. Such as disguised equity funding or providing financial reports in bad faith. Why use terms that are already in use for a completely separate matter?

I had a long argument with a Chelsea fan who accepted none City's deals were above FMV(he swore he already knew that... lol) while simultaneously not budging from his stance that "the authorities of football believe City's sponsorships are overvalued". I gave him multiple quotes from the official statements from UEFA, the PL, CAS, City themselves to show the accusation isn't about those sponsorships being overvalued. It was like talking to a brick wall though because the press have repeated that phrase over and over.... He used Simon Stone of all people, as some sort of reputable source on the matter. What's more, when I mentioned the amount of UK journalists that have constantly referred to the club as state owned when that's an incorrect statement(to highlight they are making basic errors on simple things, imagine the more complex things) he said he'd never seen it before. Apparently the BBC have never made the mistake of calling City state owned and none of the major MSM outlets have either... I was able to show him this quote from February of this year from Dan Roan(as well one from the guardian from another journo if I remember right) who is the editor of BBC sports, where Simon is just a reporter/journalist:

"If cheating is proven it would be harmful to the dominant force in the English game, to its Abu Dhabi owners, to the concept of state-owned clubs and the whole idea this is a fair competition.

That's a double whammy right there, stated owned and Abu Dhabi owners(also fair competition... aka level playing field? After UEFA briefed the press that they changed the name of FFP recently because it gave a false impression of that very aspect?) . But it did no good, wouldn't budge an inch, he still knew better than me in his eyes. That is what we are up against as fans unfortunately.

I also noticed while trying to find examples of use of the phrase 'state-owned' for City, that there were way fewer examples than I expected to find. Are they going back to alter them or delete them, to gaslight us? Or have they normally kept such phrases to twitter without me noticing it until now?(sneaky) I was just surprised how hard it was to find some, I guess.

 

[flb]

Don't forget that the Premier league fucked the football league over when they created this monster in 1993. The old first division was scrapped. No mention of financial fair play then. Bless em.

Spurs and their “To dare is to do” bullshite , where the fuck has that come from ? Has anyone told Levy that ? Or are they forever going to rely on it’s there year when it ends in a one forever , relying on superstitions like they deserve it , the red shites are one thing - but them, give me a fucking break ! Anyway , as you were…

 

[flb]

No - there is no universal right. The Premier League Rules set out what can and can't be challenged and how. There are very limited situations that could ever end up in the High Court. I've answered this earlier in this thread but even if City get an issue into Rule X (an appeal), then the appeal of an PL arbitration to the High Court is in limited circumstances pursuant to the Arbitration Act

It expressly says "Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act." So that leaves s67,68,70 and 71 of the Arbitration Act as routes to appeal to the courts.

67 is substantive jurisdiction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/67
68 is serious irregularity https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/68
70/71 are supplementary (basically process) provisions relating to 67 and 68

So, the ONLY realistic route to end up in the Courts is serious irregularity. It is almost definitely not ending up in the courts.

Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a)failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b)the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d)failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e)any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g)the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h)failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i)any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

So are you saying we are donald ducked then ? That is the question!

 

[Holcombe bloo]

No - there is no universal right. The Premier League Rules set out what can and can't be challenged and how. There are very limited situations that could ever end up in the High Court. I've answered this earlier in this thread but even if City get an issue into Rule X (an appeal), then the appeal of an PL arbitration to the High Court is in limited circumstances pursuant to the Arbitration Act

It expressly says "Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act." So that leaves s67,68,70 and 71 of the Arbitration Act as routes to appeal to the courts.

67 is substantive jurisdiction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/67
68 is serious irregularity https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/68
70/71 are supplementary (basically process) provisions relating to 67 and 68

So, the ONLY realistic route to end up in the Courts is serious irregularity. It is almost definitely not ending up in the courts.

Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a)failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b)the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d)failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e)any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g)the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h)failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i)any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

I think just a no would be sufficient!

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Someone was telling me the other day that we picked 2 out of the 3 judges in the case at CAS. I can't find anything out online about how they were selected is this true?

I had an argument with someone on the same point last Saturday. They told me that we picked 2 of the judges which wasn’t the case at all.

 

[ysmsa]

This weekends starting 11s

Utd £566M
Chelsea £426M
Liverpool 390M
Arsenal 355M
City 288M

But we bought the league

Benches,

Rags Tuppence
City a Billion

 

[Gundoggin]

if you think the UK is a shit hole...you aint been around!

Been all over the world pal .

 

[flb]

Can anyone tell me if this independent panel can be brought in if there is a dispute with one of its members whilst it’s ongoing from the current PL board that are dragging us through the coals ? Is this one big delaying tactic by the PL until this matter is resolved (seeing as we seem to be the only club in favour of reform). Are the PL using us as a scapegoat citing we can’t “hand over” until this case is resolved ? They either have us banged to rights or they don’t , we appear (to me) to be the patsy in all this - major geopolitics at play? As soon as we are “done for” Liverpool pull themselves off the market, paranoid i maybe , but this goes a lot further than a minuscule discrepancy that happened a decade or more ago , it just feels something ain’t quite right with the procedure to either fuck us or clear us.

Im going for a lie down !