Excellent post as usual. The corollary to your last point is that the criticism they might receive if they lose will be as nothing compared to if they hadn't brought proceedings at all. Indeed, the tribal public and media reaction would (will) be the same as when we were cleared by CAS, i.e." they got off on a technicality", "whatever the outcome, we know they're guilty" and so on. In short, they have little to lose, not even costs given the mitigation you describe is unlikely to prevent the panel finding in favour of the PL in relation to the non cooperation charges imo.
I'd hope, but not expect, that, if we are cleared, the panel's published judgement makes it clear what we have been cleared of so there is no room for the skewed interpretation we have witnessed since the CAS decision.
When this episode is finished, we should demand that the new independent regulatory body scrutinise all the other Premier league clubs to the same depths that we have been subjected to.Excellent post as usual. The corollary to your last point is that the criticism they might receive if they lose will be as nothing compared to if they hadn't brought proceedings at all. Indeed, the tribal public and media reaction would (will) be the same as when we were cleared by CAS, i.e." they got off on a technicality", "whatever the outcome, we know they're guilty" and so on. In short, they have little to lose, not even costs given the mitigation you describe is unlikely to prevent the panel finding in favour of the PL in relation to the non cooperation charges imo.
I'd hope, but not expect, that, if we are cleared, the panel's published judgement makes it clear what we have been cleared of so there is no room for the skewed interpretation we have witnessed since the CAS decision.
City, capital CIs city searching for a new sponsor common knowledge? I've never seen that mentioned previously.
I can, if only because Liverpool and the rags were allowed exclusively to interview Richard Masters before he was appointed.100% they need us, I simply can't believe they are just doing what they are told by the red tops, only time will tell.
Here's a question.
Presumably at CAS, all the documentation presented as evidence is collected and filed confidentially at CAS somewhere?
What about the "independent" PL panel? Does all the evidence get collected and handed over to the PL?
When this episode is finished, we should demand that the new independent regulatory body scrutinise all the other Premier league clubs to the same depths that we have been subjected to.
Here's a question.
Presumably at CAS, all the documentation presented as evidence is collected and filed confidentially at CAS somewhere?
What about the "independent" PL panel? Does all the evidence get collected and handed over to the PL?
This is an interesting post but can you clarify the points about the High Court Ruling
The high court action I believe was about the PLs right or competence (if that’s the correct words ) to arbitrate and no about failure to forward documents and yes I know the cause of the PLs wish to go to arbitration
Of course it would be madness to think that City didn’t following the ruling and you would assume arbitration then to supply every thing that the PL requested but looking again at the City statement it sort of implies that all documents requested were supplied but doesn’t actually say that
That's a load of Bizet.Capital city Toreador?
or new rules being introduced to stop next moveI would imagine we didnt hand over documents because we feared they would end up on the desk of other clubs
This is an interesting post but can you clarify the points about the High Court Ruling
The high court action I believe was about the PLs right or competence (if that’s the correct words ) to arbitrate and no about failure to forward documents and yes I know the cause of the PLs wish to go to arbitration
Of course it would be madness to think that City didn’t following the ruling and you would assume arbitration then to supply every thing that the PL requested but looking again at the City statement it sort of implies that all documents requested were supplied but doesn’t actually say that
Do you think he’s (terraloon) on the panel & needs help from our better informed fans:).:)The arbitration that was the subject of the High Court judgment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, related not to the process more generally but specifically to an arbitration process that was initiated within the investigation to deal with a point of contention between the two sides.
That's referred to in para 9 of the Court of Appeal's Judgment. This specifies that "an arbitration [was commenced in October 2019] against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld".
After some to-ing and fro-ing, according to para 14 of the same Judgment, on 24 July 2020, the "tribunal rejected the Club's arguments resisting the PL's case that it was under an obligation to provide certain documents and information to the PL ... [and] on 2 November 2020, the tribunal ordered the Club to provide certain documents and information to the PL and to make enquiries of third parties".
That order was stayed while MCFC's application to the Commercial Court was heard, the club having taken action alleging that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and was tainted by bias. Ultimately the lost lost in both the Court of Appeal, so the tribunal's order dated 24 July 2020 will have come into effect.
None of this means that MCFC have a defence to non-cooperation charges, as others have also said. However, I've argued that it can be presented as a mitigating factor reducing the amount of a possible sanction if the club can show that, since then, it's complied with the ruling of the tribunal. In other words, it's done what it should ever since it established that it was actually was under an obligation to do so.
I agree that the club's statement doesn't specifically say that all requested documents have been provided. Y0ou'd have thought they have, but who knows? Maybe there are still disputes about the issue. I suspect, though, that they were commenting without having had time to digest the charges and wanted to put out a statement that generally expressed considerable confidence without getting bogged down in any detail.
I'm trying to say these 6 questions are not complex, it's not quantum computing, just some bank transactions, accounts documents and spreadsheets. Either the PL can prove we are guilty re questions 1 6 or they can't. Let's just get this done and over with ASAP or is this just Lawyers making hay will the sun shinesAs a lay person, I just can't understand why this would take 4 years to resolve. How about this timetable
1 Sponsorship of MCFC by Aabar within the PL rules 1 week
2 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etisalat within the PL rules 1 week
3 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etihad Airways within PL rules 2 weeks
4 MCFC use of image rights within PL rules 1 week
5 MCFC payments to Roberto Mancini within PL rules 1 week
6 All non cooperation charges 2 weeks
7 Summary, conclusions and decisions 4 weeks.
That's 3 months done and dusted, get into a project planner and get it done. I think the Bernie Madof case took less than 4 years !!!
hope your not a solicitor in real life cause you'll never make money. you missed out letter sending weeks and awaiting reply weeksAs a lay person, I just can't understand why this would take 4 years to resolve. How about this timetable
1 Sponsorship of MCFC by Aabar within the PL rules 1 week
2 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etisalat within the PL rules 1 week
3 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etihad Airways within PL rules 2 weeks
4 MCFC use of image rights within PL rules 1 week
5 MCFC payments to Roberto Mancini within PL rules 1 week
6 All non cooperation charges 2 weeks
7 Summary, conclusions and decisions 4 weeks.
That's 3 months done and dusted, get into a project planner and get it done. I think the Bernie Madof case took less than 4 years !!!
I would have thought City could easily defend the non cooperation charges if they did provide the information requested by the PL after the appeal hearing.The arbitration that was the subject of the High Court judgment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, related not to the process more generally but specifically to an arbitration process that was initiated within the investigation to deal with a point of contention between the two sides.
That's referred to in para 9 of the Court of Appeal's Judgment. This specifies that "an arbitration [was commenced in October 2019] against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld".
After some to-ing and fro-ing, according to para 14 of the same Judgment, on 24 July 2020, the "tribunal rejected the Club's arguments resisting the PL's case that it was under an obligation to provide certain documents and information to the PL ... [and] on 2 November 2020, the tribunal ordered the Club to provide certain documents and information to the PL and to make enquiries of third parties".
That order was stayed while MCFC's application to the Commercial Court was heard, the club having taken action alleging that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and was tainted by bias. Ultimately the lost lost in both the Court of Appeal, so the tribunal's order dated 24 July 2020 will have come into effect.
None of this means that MCFC have a defence to non-cooperation charges, as others have also said. However, I've argued that it can be presented as a mitigating factor reducing the amount of a possible sanction if the club can show that, since then, it's complied with the ruling of the tribunal. In other words, it's done what it should ever since it established that it was actually was under an obligation to do so.
I agree that the club's statement doesn't specifically say that all requested documents have been provided. Y0ou'd have thought they have, but who knows? Maybe there are still disputes about the issue. I suspect, though, that they were commenting without having had time to digest the charges and wanted to put out a statement that generally expressed considerable confidence without getting bogged down in any detail.
Once this is done with we'll all be Gladys, all over.Ok Gladys
I’ll pass you your coatOnce this is done with we'll all be Gladys, all over.
THE ADo you think he’s (terraloon) on the panel & needs help from our better informed fans:).:)
So my point is valid in thatDo you think he’s (terraloon) on the panel & needs help from our better informed fans:).:)
But what are tge PL risking? I think their risk was greater by doing nothing.
I really can't see how them losing the case is damaging, surely they hold hands up and confess to doing all they can. No cooperation fine accepted by City only on proviso it is publicly stated by PL why given, and not a sign of guilt.
I personally feel city are now as important to PL as tge red tops given our growth and status.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz. You just repeat what you’ve read on here; add a bit of your own speculation & off you go againTHE A
So my point is valid in that
1) The High Court ruled on the competency of the PL Arbitration panel and not making an order to disclose documents.
2) We have absolutely no idea if Man City supplied the information a) requested by the PL and b) confirmed as being “ appropriate “ by the arbitration panel
As I say it would opening up all sorts of problems if they still flatly refused to supply any and everything that the arbitration panel agreed was relevant
They already are surely??Mention our name anywhere in the UK/Europe I would guarantee a majority would think of Pep, Aguero, Haaland and dodgy dealings, a oversimplification but hopefully you get my point.
Would a major global brand want to invest 100s of millions into us until we are 100% cleared of the serious charges, I would say no.