Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.
Great article. Thanks.
August might be too late. In that case there may be an interim judgement suspending the ban.
Great post thank you. Look forward to any future snippets. Spot the bitter Australian Dipper in the comments. Sad fucker.
Thanks for a great post, all of a sudden I feel positive about the outcome, looking forward to reading your next post.
Very unlikely. Everything will be heard. And the procedural argument is unlikely to work anyway as CAS is considered the fix for any procedural issues.
Limitation periods are not procedural deficiencies though.
i really hope we smash this but i have a horrid feeling we won't.
Cool story bro.
I've just seen this but read your article last night. Good article and I've responded, with pretty well what I put on here a short while ago.
I agree broadly with the order and the questions at 1 and 2. There is also a question of limitation and whether the breaches (even if proved) are timed out (that may be what your 1. means). All of 3-6 is irrelevant because of the well established principle in CAS jurisprudence that even if there were any procedural failings in arriving at the AC's decision, the nature of CAS proceedings cures all procedural defects in lower decisions (eg "Right to a fair hearing. As to the complaints about the fairness of the process before the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body, it is long and well established in CAS jurisprudence that even if there were any procedural failings (which is denied) the de novo nature of CAS proceedings cures all procedural defects in lower instances." (https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/CASdecisions/02/47/25/28/2472528_DOWNLOAD.pdf p31) and "The facts and the law are examined de novo by a CAS panel in accordance with the power bestowed on it by article R57 of the CAS Code. The panel is therefore not limited to the facts and legal arguments of the previous instance. In relation to issues regarding the procedure at the lower instance, it is well-established in CAS’ case law that procedural defects in the lower instances can be cured through the de novo hearing before CAS." (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/4704.pdf p1))
In English - if UEFA is not barred from considering those breaches and if the settlement agreement is not binding on those breaches, then the key question is whether those breaches are proved or even provable. And then if proved (in CAS), was the punishment proportionate etc. In short, forget the procedural stuff.
I still want to understand how UEFA can prove City's audited accounts are false in a hearing of this stature. It is a very serious allegation that would ordinarily require very detailed evaluation by a court.
I think our legal team will want to understand the process the IC went through given the time constraint they were working to. Additionally, did the constraints placed on the IC in terms of a ridiculously short time period to undertake such a complex investigation have an impact on the AC?. I.e. what impact did a flawed or rushed IC process have on the AC process. There must be a record of what the IC passed to the AC at the end of their investigation? Going to be very hard for UEFA to demonstrate that they followed an objective and transparent process - at best they will argue that the AC did part of the ICs role (If the AC claim they looked at everything including our dossier then they will have drifted into investigatory territory because there’s no way the info passed to them from the IC could be complete or definitive) but that will be contrary to their process and procedure and will undermine why the investigation is conducted separately from the judgement.