PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[horlock_was_super]

Well said Big Sam.

Damn it! He’s not getting the nytid job then.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Jesus. Can you two stop arguing? It's making me crazy :)

I was essentially agreeing with him ffs!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

They won’t want to give any impression but they’ll definitely have made their minds up.

You can nearly always tell from the questions they have asked. It’s not an infallible method, but it’s pretty reliable.

 

[halfcenturyup]

There’s a distinction between the decision that the panel members will individually arrive at in their heads and the joint determination and reasons, which will unquestionably be reserved, but I’d be amazed if they didn’t all know their individual definitive positions at the conclusion of the case, and most likely considerably in advance of that.

So, a question for our legal friends. Let's say the APT judgment was issued three months after the hearing finished. How much of that time would be taken up with deliberations between the arbitrators and how much, after they had agreed their conclusions, with drafting, reviewing and redrafting (where necessary) the reasons?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I was essentially agreeing with him ffs!

Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

My bad.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

So, a question for our legal friends. Let's say the APT judgment was issued three months after the hearing finished. How much of that time would be taken up with deliberations between the arbitrators and how much, after they had agreed their conclusions, with drafting, reviewing and redrafting (where necessary) the reasons?

This is a guess, but it’s not unheard of for the parties to have some input into the wording of a judicial determination, once it’s been arrived at, and my guess is that would be more likely to be permissible in this setting than many others.

If any of the limitation points got home I’d be pushing for the wording on that to expressly provide that this isn’t a ‘technicality’ but a core term of the agreement between the parties (I may have mentioned this once or twice before!).

 

[BerkshireBlue]

I'll happily join you in that :)

Stupid to be arguing over the details when we both agree pretty much on what the outcome is going to be. Apologies to those on the forum who are bored with it.

yeah 100% sorry guys

 

[slbsn]

There’s a distinction between the decision that the panel members will individually arrive at in their heads and the joint determination and reasons, which will unquestionably be reserved, but I’d be amazed if they didn’t all know their individual definitive positions at the conclusion of the case, and most likely considerably in advance of that.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it is impossible that a 3 person panel on a 10-12 week trial with a fair bit of complexity outside of their individual skillsets could need some time to deliberate and debate the weight of some of the evidence. And this also assumes a unanimity of view which is uncertain. Either way the initial point is clear - no decision will be handed down in the room

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it is impossible that a 3 person panel on a 10-12 week trial with a fair bit of complexity outside of their individual skillsets could need some time to deliberate and debate the weight of some of the evidence. And this also assumes a unanimity of view which is uncertain. Either way the initial point is clear - no decision will be handed down in the room

Yes, that’s absolutely fair comment. Certainly not impossible and arguably more likely than that. It’s certainly possible, but not likely imo and fwiw.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is a guess, but it’s not unheard of for the parties to have some input into the wording of a judicial determination, once it’s been arrived at, and my guess is that would be more likely to be permissible in this setting than many others.

If any of the limitation points got home I’d be pushing for the wording on that to expressly provide that this isn’t a ‘technicality’ but a core term of the agreement between her parties (I may have mentioned this once or twice before!).

On the facts of the case, presumably?

I seem to remember UEFA and City got a copy of the CAS award, presumably redacted for the actual conclusions, the week before publication?

Maybe I am misremembering, but I always imagined that was why Cheeseman was able to judge the feeling in the club on the Friday before the award was published. A party can presumably get an idea of the way it has gone from how the facts (amount of detail, order of the reasoning and the like) are described?

Maybe this is the same....