Wolves thread 2019/20

[MillionMilesAway]

They signed a letter asking that the ban was not overturned before the appeal was heard.

That is completely different to what you wrote about "trying to have us banned" - we already were banned.

And yes, there was every reason to uphold the ban before the appeal was heard, it would have been standard practice anyway, they just added their voice to it in case City or UEFA tried to push it back.

I agree with you - Wolves had an interest in freeing a CL place for next season. It seems reasonable to request that the ban occur in a timely fashion.

The only side who were safe and signed were Liverpool.

 

[domalino]

The point is surely about due process. We received a ban and appealed. Normal procedure would allow us to ask for suspension of the ban. The hateful eight/nincompoop nine were, in effect, urging that our rights be removed.
The twitterati and the rest of the media claimed we were trying to slow down the appeal and they assumed we had asked for suspension of the ban. Neither was true. Indeed we wanted the appeal heard quickly. Not one of those clubs had seen our evidence. Truly vindictive and stupid.

Due Process is not suspending a ban until the appeal. If you get convicted of a crime, they don't just let you walk around scott-free until your appeals process is exhausted.

That's why CAS only suspend punishment before appeals after special requests where you have to argue that there is irreparable damage being done by the punishment being in place until the appeal is held - and that's weighed against irreparable damage being done to others if the punishment is lifted and the appeal is unsuccessful.

Wolves, Sheffield United and to a lesser extent Leicester, all had a really good case that if CAS had decided to suspend the ban pending the outcome of the appeal and the ban had been upheld, resulting in a 21/22 and 22/23 ban, it would have done them irreparable damage.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Due Process is not suspending a ban until the appeal.

If you get convicted of a crime, they don't just let you walk around scott-free until your appeals process is exhausted.

It was FIFA, but didn't Chelsea have their ban cut part way through on appeal?
I guess that was the thought - that the ban might be halved.

 

[KS55]

Due Process is not suspending a ban until the appeal. If you get convicted of a crime, they don't just let you walk around scott-free until your appeals process is exhausted.

That's why CAS only suspend punishment before appeals after special requests where you have to argue that there is irreparable damage being done by the punishment being in place until the appeal is held - and that's weighed against irreparable damage being done to others if the punishment is lifted and the appeal is unsuccessful.

Wolves, Sheffield United and to a lesser extent Leicester, all had a really good case that if CAS had decided to suspend the ban pending the outcome of the appeal and the ban had been upheld, resulting in a 21/22 and 22/23 ban, it would have done them irreparable damage.

Nice try, but I don't buy it.
1. If the rules allow a certain course of action, that is due process.
2. Sentence suspended and bail pending an appeal is within the judge's remit and is sometimes granted. More so in US than here. Cas case was not criminal.
3 Those clubs did not risk irreparable damage. If that were so, they would be suffering that damage now. Opportunity cost only.

 

[cjn]

I agree with you - Wolves had an interest in freeing a CL place for next season. It seems reasonable to request that the ban occur in a timely fashion.

The only side who were safe and signed were Liverpool.

One would have to be pretty naive to think that we (or anyone really) wouldn't have taken exactly the same position if in their shoes. It really can't be overstated how big of a deal being in the Champion's League would've been for their club and how it would impact recruitment, finances, everything. They needed an answer. For anyone within shouting distance of fifth place it was a very reasonable request and this stuff about due process is nonsense.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

One would have to be pretty naive to think that we (or anyone really) wouldn't have taken exactly the same position if in their shoes. It really can't be overstated how big of a deal being in the Champion's League would've been for their club and how it would impact recruitment, finances, everything. They needed an answer. For anyone within shouting distance of fifth place it was a very reasonable request and this stuff about due process is nonsense.

Yes, big business is rarely 'nice' - similarly, the club will be behind FFP in principle.

 

[balotellishaircut]

One would have to be pretty naive to think that we (or anyone really) wouldn't have taken exactly the same position if in their shoes. It really can't be overstated how big of a deal being in the Champion's League would've been for their club and how it would impact recruitment, finances, everything. They needed an answer. For anyone within shouting distance of fifth place it was a very reasonable request and this stuff about due process is nonsense.

I could never envisage our owners signing that letter, but you think differently and that's what this forum is all about.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I could never envisage our owners signing that letter, but you think differently and that's what this forum is all about.

I like to think that too, personally, I'd have been disappointed if we had.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

I like to think that too, personally, I'd have been disappointed if we had.

I'd be disgusted and embarrassed if our club signed a letter like that. Sheff United didn't and they were in with a very good chance of European football for the first time in their history.

 

[cptaidan88]

I like to think that too, personally, I'd have been disappointed if we had.

In reality if the situation was reversed, I reckon we would have been Arsenal (the instigators) in the situation, and not Wolves, who just went along with it. Naive to think otherwise in my opinion.