PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

Yes, the idea is basically that you don't get a right of appeal to the courts if the decision is a bit contentious or marginal or you don't like it or think you weren't treated well but the tribunal has basically acted professionally. But if you get properly fucked over and are able to justify that to a court, protection is there.

The latter is very rare as generally tribunals covered by the Act comprise professional people who take their duties seriously. But there does seem to be a sense in football that those with regulatory power can act as they wish without being bound by legal principles that apply in other industries, so I suppose you never know.

So if you firmly believe you have irrefutable evidence, cash transaction trail accepted by CAS & ignored by this committee would this be a procedural failure?

 

[Iassel]

Think you're writing off Liverpool, in particular, a little prematurely there.

Nah, they don’t have the funds for the full rebuild that they need, they’ve just had a failed attempt at selling the business and are fighting City, Qatar, Newcastle who can now spend £500m this summer with the CL funds, Arsenal likewise and Chelsea with a competent manager in charge.

Their only chance of getting back into the CL anytime soon is to win the Europa.

 

[Coatigan]

Yes, the idea is basically that you don't get a right of appeal to the courts if the decision is a bit contentious or marginal or you don't like it or think you weren't treated well but the tribunal has basically acted professionally. But if you get properly fucked over and are able to justify that to a court, protection is there.

The latter is very rare as generally tribunals covered by the Act comprise professional people who take their duties seriously. But there does seem to be a sense in football that those with regulatory power can act as they wish without being bound by legal principles that apply in other industries, so I suppose you never know.

No I get it. There is obviously a lot of finesse of language in it all. So when people say 'the club will appeal it, take it to cas, the high court' etc. projectriver or others that say that option isn't there will be right (I trust, don't know).

That doesn't have to mean or be taken as there is NO mechanism to challenge something that might be considered unreasonable, or to ensure something isn't unreasonable. Which is the bit I always struggled believing. We are I guess talking extremities. One thing this and the uefa/cas processes seem to often show, in law and legal matters, there always seems to be a 'but' somewhere.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).

The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.

However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".

Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).

Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".

So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.

If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.

The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).

Makes more sense. Thanks. Then we should be relatively OK in terms of protection. I think a lot of people on here think we are going to be fined a million for banging the Chairman's wife and they worry about it.

Hope all is well in Mother Russia ....

One set of my great grandparents were Russian. Circus performers strangely enough. Anyway, don't know why I told you that :D

 

[petrusha]

So if you firmly believe you have irrefutable evidence, cash transaction trail accepted by CAS & ignored by this committee would this be a procedural failure?

It's not a case of a procedural failure. What you need to show is that it's a serious irregularity based on the panel's failure to exercise its duty to be fair and impartial in considering the evidence. And it's a very high bar, as you in effect would need to show that the panel came to a conclusion that a reasonable panel, acting fairly, couldn't have reached.

There'd therefore be a risk that an appeal by City on those grounds would fail. It's not an easy thing to prove to that level.

 

[xgorton]

Who?

Think he played for Leeds once.

 

[Coatigan]

Think you're writing off Liverpool, in particular, a little prematurely there.

Depends on your interpretation of 'massive'. I agree with you, they are a top club and have quality, and are still better than most of the challengers. They also need significant investment, longer term. But they are unlikely to have issues with FFP so it is a bit moot. Guess that means you are right, damn.

 

[its a Barm]

Probably been mentioned but 100% this is all coming out next week will be all over the news papers

 

[cheekybids]

It's not a case of a procedural failure. What you need to show is that it's a serious irregularity based on the panel's failure to exercise its duty to be fair and impartial in considering the evidence. And it's a very high bar, as you in effect would need to show that the panel came to a conclusion that a reasonable panel, acting fairly, couldn't have reached.

There'd therefore be a risk that an appeal by City on those grounds would fail. It's not an easy thing to prove to that level.

Let me frame it another way. If it’s the same evidence provided to CAS which clears City & this time we are found guilty. Can that be considered unreasonable?

Edit - apologies for my butchering of legal / English language.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Probably been mentioned but 100% this is all coming out next week will be all over the news papers

What is?