I am afraid that is how City operates, but I am totally with you. In addition I also wish City would retalliate hard enough to stop these bullies. This shit will only stop if the bastards learn that it hurts to attack us.Just a bland statement from the Club.
They want our undivided support, I personally thing they should be giving us more.
CAS was different I can't be arsed searching but both 'sides' could [ick one panel member & had to both agree the other.One of the CAS panel worked in the Middle East office of Etihad and Etisalat's lawyers.
Some brilliant points made there mate. And yes, I know that there is no way a commercial business like the Prem can lawfully deny an entity like us access to justice. Rules are one thing, but they're not laws. My guess is that one route to the courts would be via finding something unlawful in the Prem's handling of this so far.Yes we do.
Hence why we just hired the sharpest legal mind in the country before the Premier League hearing, to send an unambiguous message to the Premier League.
Message being " We know what comes next,we are already preparing for the High Court".
We will be challenging the expected finding of guilt irrespective of our innocence by a Kangaroo Court made up of our enemies, and their sycophants.As well as what will likely be an unprecedentedly harsh punishment that will benefit all the Cartel Clubs.
It’s a barm……If he wants to keep sinking his teeth into her muffin he`s got to tow the line
wish I had the answer to this... all I can say is that you would very much hope so.Can I add a question. As football is also a business we have to obey the rules of the country we live in. Despite the fact that we signed up to the rules of the league we still have our rights to run our business to achieve the best results without being restricted by our competitors. So I believe that we have the nuclear option of challenging this in the courts because of it's anti competitive nature. Is this reasonable?
So you are saying that football rules trump the laws of the land?No, if you join a club you sign up to obey their rules even if they are anti-competitive.
Surely not correct, otherwise all rules would just be handed down with no say for the participants. You join and agree to the rules but you are entitled to try to get those rules changed. Suing to show they are illegal may not be the best way to do that, but think back: the old retain and transfer rules were clearly unfair to players. They were challenged in court by George Eastham and he won. The next big move was, the Belgian Bosman who sued and effectively opened up freedom of contract.No, if you join a club you sign up to obey their rules even if they are anti-competitive.
It would have had the same amount of coverage as the dippers hacking scandal!It would be spun very differently if the charges were against one of the red tops.
Could City take subsequent civil action against the PL for reputational or financial damage. The PL charge decison was briefed to the media before City received it for example. That is certainly the PL acting in bad faith. It seems incredible we would have no redress for something which could devastate our business wth job losses, delayed developments in Manchester city-centre, ruin careers and local sub-contractors, and create stress for thousands of our fans. Is it really the case in the UK that a three-person panel can have those sort of powers without any protection for the accused party?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.