PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Joe Donachie said:
Khaldoons weight loss?? Anyone concerned about it? He looks ill to me, hope it’s nothing to do with him worrying about these charges??

I just want this whole episode putting to bed once and for all, it’s getting to the point now where rival fans will not be happy not to just be relegated to the bottom leauge but to actually do a bury fc and go out of business with the shutters pulled,
Click to expand...
Get f***ed you stupid c**t
 
Father Paul said:
It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that it is not possible for City to move the case into the realm of the civil courts system. For rexample, to appeal any negative decisions made by the Panel.
Click to expand...

This is actually a misrepresentation of what has been stated by several lawyers on here with regard to the possibility of City managing to have the case heard in the High Court, and I think it worth clarifying the point. Under section 68(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, City would have the right to "apply to the court challenging an award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award."

It's certainly true that many of this board's lawyers commenting on the issue have sought to downplay the chances of City being able to use this provision. After all, challenges under section 68 are meant to be a last resort that's rarely used. Further, in reaching our assessment, we've generally assumed that the panel will be composed of eminent professionals who'll act accordingly during the proceedings, thus neutralising the prospect of their being held to have committed a "serious irregularity".

Frankly, the existence of this provision should be enough to keep the panel honest in terms of the way it conducts itself. It would be humiliating for the PL as a whole, but particularly for the individual members of the panel, if they were to find their award being challenged in the High Court on the ground of it entailing a "serious irregularity". I think we can safely assume that, if the panel offers us anything remotely resembling an opportunity for a High Court challenge, City and our lawyers will be on it like a rat up a drainpipe.

Nonetheless, some posters still fear a stitch-up. These people might well question whether there could be a problem for City owing to the absence in section 68 of a right to challenge an award on the ground of it being perverse, manifestly wrong or whatever. Personally, I don't really think that's an issue, even if the panel were to try to do a number on us by relying on the relatively low standard of proof required (the balance of probabilities) to reach an evidentially questionable verdict.

Why am I so sanguine? Well, section 68(2) lists what constitutes a "serious irregularity" for these purposes, and one of them, pursuant to section 68(2)(a), is where a tribunal fails to comply with section 33 of the same Act, which among other things imposes a duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties". In practical terms, I see it as highly unlikely that a tribunal could produce an award that ran counter to the weight of the evidence without falling foul of that provision. The bias will surely shine through in other ways, too, in such a situation, thus rendering a challenge possible.

Admittedly, I can't say that the above would be so in every case, and there must be at least a notional chance of a dubious award being handed down but not being accompanied by the kind of irregularity that gives scope for a challenge. So what happens in this somewhat unlikely but theoretically possible case? I was discussing this with a fellow Blue a month or so ago. My bet is that you'll see court action - it just won't be City that's the litigant.

Remember that, in the CAS proceedings, City pleaded and the panel implicitly accepted that the allegations, if true, would inevitably involve various fraudulent criminal conspiracies between the club, some of its sponsors, their officers, as well as other prominent individuals and entities based in Abu Dhabi. Of course, I may be wrong and I don't claim ITK status on that, but I don't see the Emirate of Abu Dhabi taking that lying down. Simple as that.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
Well we don’t know what or how often they asked for cooperation, but it feels as though City got a little miffed when confidential information got leaked and also the fact that they felt there were fishing expeditions going on so decided it best to frame everything legally. It’s not exactly non-cooperation, I doubt we were refusing to hand over information, more like you can have what you’re entitled to but it must be done in a certain way.
Click to expand...
Haven't the EPL tightened up 3rd party regulations, so it sounds to me that EPL have asked to see Etihads books & we have refused
 
lust overlord said:
The clear and obvious comeback from the hosts of the thick,uniformed,or just downright biased will be to claim bribery, government interference or deeper pockets for lawyers.

This isn't going to just all disappear with a not guilty verdict,the club,like it or not,will have some sort of tarnish attached for years.
Click to expand...
Will we really care though
 
Someone at the club must have told tolmie otherwise where would he have got this information from. And also if he has been told surely the club will be pissed because someone is leaking inside information which is not for release yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.