That is the hierarchy but they don't flow into each other nor consider the same points. But generally the above is correct.Can we at least agree now that the appeals process is:
Disciplinary panel > Appeals board > Arbitration tribunal > Courts.
At each stage the grounds to appeal to the next step are reduced:
Appeals boards have to be set up whatever the appeal, but difficult (not impossible) to overturn a finding of fact. City likely to appeal against any sanction if one is imposed, I would imagine. Why not? Will be interesting to see if the PL appeals if City are successful and in what areas.
Arbitration tribunal has limited jurisdictional grounds so may refuse a tribunal hearing, but I am sure expensive lawyers can work something out.
A high court appeal has very limited grounds under English law and the PL rules, which makes it virtually (but not completely) impossible.
And, as we all know, there is no possibility of an appeal to CAS in the PL rules.
I think that is it. More or less.
** Waits to be blasted **
I think I understood that at the time. I remember that then being shot down and bracketed as any appeal. But that could also well be by other people arguing what (they thought) you said rather than you, and because of that I got stuck with the impression it came from you.Cheers. It will be no appeals to the outside courts - there was a lot of nonsense spoken about that. It is almost impossible to get to the High Court for the substantive assessment.
We just need to hope that the independent panel have a moral backbone and are independent!Can we at least agree now that the appeals process is:
Disciplinary panel > Appeals board > Arbitration tribunal > Courts.
At each stage the grounds to appeal to the next step are reduced:
Appeals boards have to be set up whatever the appeal, but difficult (not impossible) to overturn a finding of fact. City likely to appeal against any sanction if one is imposed, I would imagine. Why not? Will be interesting to see if the PL appeals if City are successful and in what areas.
Arbitration tribunal has limited jurisdictional grounds so may refuse a tribunal hearing, but I am sure expensive lawyers can work something out.
A high court appeal has very limited grounds under English law and the PL rules, which makes it virtually (but not completely) impossible.
And, as we all know, there is no possibility of an appeal to CAS in the PL rules.
I think that is it. More or less.
** Waits to be blasted **
I've literally never seen it especially since we've known definitively (if there was any doubt) from the day Everton 1 was announced that appeals of ICs were possible and inevitable. But I only pop on here from time to time.I think I understood that at the time. I remember that then being shot down and bracketed as any appeal. But that could also well be by other people arguing what (they thought) you said rather than you, and because of that I got stuck with the impression it came from you.
As I said, if I do look for it and find it, I'll point you to it. Not to score points or prove anything, just so you see where that perception came from.
You can clearly see though that people do still repeat it, and I challenge it from time to time. At least your post helps calrify that for any reading it.
Every paragraph of Roan’s article is twisted and distorted. Subtle changes. He refers to the CAS judgement statement using the phrase: “No conclusive evidence” The actual phrase used repeatedly by CAS was: “No evidence.” Fundamentally dishonest reporting.Why it's only his take and we all know what that is. Predictable crap.
I think the past 18 months has shown that we should never underestimate the incompetence of the PL.That is the hierarchy but they don't flow into each other nor consider the same points. But generally the above is correct.
Also, I wouldn't always be sure the lawyers can work something out - not successfully. The rules look pretty clear here and like with Leicester, it is very hard to see how the PL can appeal the Appeal Board without saying they were incompetent which is near impossible given it is 3 lawyers and 2 former CoA judges.
The point is they would have to construct a legal argument that the Appeal Board (not themselves) were incompetent such that they couldn't possibly come to the conclusion they did come to. It is basically an impossible barI think the past 18 months has shown that we should never underestimate the incompetence of the PL.
Its only fans of the cartel who are concerned about it the majority of international fans, of the PL and the clubs know fuck all about itIMHO it's gone past whether we are guilty or not and I don't believe we are, the damage made to the consciousness of other fans has killed their ability to be trusted to govern.
We get found not guilty I can see teams just leaving the league and maybe forming another one, they've booted their own product into touch.
The PL are suing City for breach of contract, albeit it is being settled by arbitration. If the PL decline to offer evidence of a particular breach, normally that would be the end of it. The panel would not waste time on an item which was no longer in contention. I suppose City could ask the panel for a formal verdict of not proven.Just passing on what a mate of mine has said. He has a line of communication into the club and it's been reiterated recently that City are super confident of the outcome. Worth remembering that nobody can be 100% sure that we'll win of course, even if we have a very strong case and that's something Stefan has often pointed out.
Also, he heard that a lot of the charges won't even be discussed/have been dropped/thrown out. That squares with similar to what Tolmie said yonks ago. I for one am not sure on that particular aspect as I'd still expect all the charges to be considered when the panel sits even if the panel thinks some or all of them are not worth the paper they're written on?