PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[GaudinoMotors]

Hi fella,

Just remember this will pass, it’s hard given how emotionally entangled we are with our club for it not to impact mental health when it seems so unfair given the origin of FFP. But this ain’t worth letting it get you too down. We’ve got one hell of a board behind us but whatever the outcome you will still be a blue. With memories and experiences other clubs could only have dreamed of. this is all part of being a city fan, ups and downs are in the fabric of this club. Smile whenever a rag or dipper give you grief, it could be worse you could be them.

deep breath in chest out, be proud

remember we’ve seen things they’ll never see.

it’ll be reet, it always is!

You're right - great and thoughtful post.
Be great if the club realised just how much this is affecting some.

 

[wattle]

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 in other words we can definitely take it to court if we get stitched over. If we get done for minor offences we’ll get a minor punishment and will have to put up with it.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Does Simon Jordan ever attend games at the Etihad?
I see Simons been very forthright in his views about our club whilst protected in his cosy radio studio, I think one or two blues would be interested in having a open & frank discussion about matters face to face :-)

I got a thread ban last time I suggested something similar to this, so I’m on my best behaviour now. He’s been slandering City for years, if we’re cleared I wouldn’t like to be him.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

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.

We'll I can see a few things the club could pick out there if required

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Can someone post that Arsenal meme so we can check if this Arsenal geeeezer is in the crowd boiling piss ? Just someone who looks like him will do so we can say it’s ‘subjective’

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

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.

Having had a couple of days to reflect, do you still believe the timing of this was coincidental and the government White Paper is “unconnected”?

 

[Agueroooo9320]

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.

just because it says serious does not mean it some magical high bar. if we feel we are being wronged "seriously" we can indeed take it to court. besides I am pretty sure it will be the court that will take the decision if we are "seriously" wronged in the first place and that is not upto the panel. so I am sure our lawyers can come up with a reasoning if we get shafted in the tribunal arbitration process.

 

[BushWhacker]

The High Court is an option. And that's coming from City yesterday.

Stefen is great to listen to when he’s not talking about the shit he does for a living. He’s the only voice that doesn’t sound like a twat on the 93.20 pod. I like his opinions but he’s not half a doom merchant some times. He’s deffo avoiding cracks in the pavement and walking around ladders instead of under on a day to day basis.

 

[Dirty Harry]

The High Court is an option. And that's coming from City yesterday.

Agreed, this wasn’t put in the club statement for effect, imo they’ve already done their homework and have been doing for a very long time :-

“The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position”.

 

[blue ranger]

As City have been expecting this I wouldn’t be surprised if we’ve already got our angles sorted. The whole affair stinks of trying to exploit an element of surprise. The PL have had four years to investigate likewise we’ve had four years to prepare, fuck em!

I think this is all pie in the sky. This smoking gun people refer to really doesn’t exist. If it did then stuff would have been long in the open.