Yes, I read that at the time, but it is wrong. There are several cases where the investigatory procedure has been questioned and CAS made a ruling. CAS would surely have made an announcement by now if they were declining to hear that appeal. City are not appealing the referal per se, but claiming that the procedure was flawed. Maybe a fine point of distinction, but it gives the lawyers a thrill and a fee!
And of course they couldn't 'start again' as there is a five year limit on investigations which is why they appear to have rushed it through on the very final day possible and possibly shot themselves in the foot doing so. Their reasons for doing that are anyones guess at the moment.Yes, it is a minefield. If we are appealing against the procedure rather than the referral, the outcome could be that the investigatory committee are ordered by CAS to start again. CONN is no lawyer and has changed from a Clty supporter into a critic. In his report, he says he believes City are appealing against the process, but then concludes, maybe wrongly, that the case he quotes rule this out., but that ruling was that you could not appeal against a referral.
As I say, it is a fine distinction. CAS may yet, of course, rule our appeal out of order finding the distinguishing features not strong enough.
Yes there is. One ground on which CAS will hear an appeal is unfair process. So the substantive case is yet to be decided but City have appeal on the process.
Yes, I'd forgotten that statement from CAS. Basically told UEFA you can go ahead and impose sanctions if you want as it won't affect City's submission to CAS. Not a chance that UEFA would do that I'd have thought though as given our stance so far, we would 100% appeal to CAS on the penalties exacted while CAS were still waiting to decide whether it should have gone ahead or not.Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.
That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.
The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.
IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.
However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.
Thank you. Funnily enough, I have just been looking at your post on p685 of this thread. Took me ages to find it...should have just sat here waiting for your input!!Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.
That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.
The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.
IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.
However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.
Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.
That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.
The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.
IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.
However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.
Yes, I'd forgotten that statement from CAS. Basically told UEFA you can go ahead and impose sanctions if you want as it won't affect City's submission to CAS. Not a chance that UEFA would do that I'd have thought though as given our stance so far, we would 100% appeal to CAS on the penalties exacted while CAS were still waiting to decide whether it should have gone ahead or not.
Confused? You will be after this weeks episode of...