halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,845
You are in (sort of) the same place as me
In recent weeks I have raised concerns several times about the potential for the IC members 'supporting the position of their paymasters' - this because the only real evidence that we have previously had to judge that risk was the fella that voted against us at CAS - against all the (NO) evidence.
Well - I do not take much comfort in this regard from this LCFC appeal. It does mean that the original IC did find for the PL - despite this (rather obvious) major issue.
@halfcenturyup
Absolutely not pulling you up - you are one of the major contributors to this thread and I take a lot of information and confidence from your posts -, but, you replied on my concerns.........
"The confidence you should have is from the legal people on here saying they themselves have confidence in the process, having reviewed all these previous PL verdicts and from their professional knowledge and experience.
I don't know what more can be said to help. The legal guys on here, who know what they are talking about, say they have confidence in the process. That's good enough for me."
We now have an example of an IC finding for the PL despite a 'glaring error' - and Stefan has said today not to take much comfort from this LCFC appeal as there are limited routes for an appeal to be lodged.
I am reserving my right to be concerned -;)
You are very kind, but I know fuck all about the legal complexities so you would be right to be concerned if that is in your nature. I can only talk about any legal issue because I listen to what our legal people here are saying, and try to firstly understand it and then absorb it.
I will send you a dm with something I have written on independence of the panel. I write this stuff to get my own mind straight more than anything, so maybe it will help you, maybe not. I may put the whole thing on a sub-stack or I may not, but have a read of this section.
But I really wouldn't worry about the panel. In all cases so far they seem to have come to the right conclusion, at the end if not at the beginning. I am sure the club's legal team will keep them on the straight and narrow.
Btw, this is the rule on appeals to an appeals panel:
I don't think SB was saying there were limited avenues to an appeals panel but that it would be more difficult to have a matter of fact overturned than a matter of legal interpretation. I am sure we have lots of expensive lawyers looking at stuff like that.
Anyway, what do I know :)