It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 16 minutes ago
"It's impossible to have a decent debate about the topic on here, most have made their minds up despite the lack of eveidence being available"
Thinking there's no way City got from where they where to where they are now so quickly is legit isn't anything to do with the evidence. Chelsea went from nowhere to winning the league soon after Abramovich took over. People said then there's no way that's legit. How much is only just coming out now apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The odd thing with that sentiment is that if we are found guilty of the main charges, the most annoying thing to me is that we didn’t need to do it, they didn’t change our ability to do it legitimately or not.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 16 minutes ago
"It's impossible to have a decent debate about the topic on here, most have made their minds up despite the lack of eveidence being available"
Thinking there's no way City got from where they where to where they are now so quickly is legit isn't anything to do with the evidence. Chelsea went from nowhere to winning the league soon after Abramovich took over. People said then there's no way that's legit. How much is only just coming out now apparently.
------------------------------------------
First up, Matthew Harding was bank rolling Chelsea long before Roma.
There was no FFP back then, your transfer budget was down to the owners generosity.
City were in excellent financial shape when ASUG took over, minimal debt and a decent stadium that didn't need a fortune spending on it.
City didn't just become great overnight, we already had UEFA Cup football and it took another 10 years to reach the next level.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t and I’m not muddying the waters at all, I think that’s exactly what you’re doing!
The PL cannot decide on guilt itself. That’s what the independent panel is there to do. It is not there to allow for clubs to prove their innocence, it is there to hear both sides of the dispute and then come to an independent judgment. That’s the whole point of it and why they set it up in 2019 - it’s entirely independent.
The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction.
You seem to think the starting point is city are guilty of x. It isn’t. It’s the pl contends that city is guilty of x, they have to now prove it to that level of burden to the independent panel.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t and I’m not muddying the waters at all, I think that’s exactly what you’re doing!
The PL cannot decide on guilt itself. That’s what the independent panel is there to do. It is not there to allow for clubs to prove their innocence, it is there to hear both sides of the dispute and then come to an independent judgment. That’s the whole point of it and why they set it up in 2019 - it’s entirely independent.
The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction.
You seem to think the starting point is city are guilty of x. It isn’t. It’s the pl contends that city is guilty of x, they have to now prove it to that level of burden to the independent panel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who setup the 'independant panel' so who do they answer to? Who pays their bills?
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t and I’m not muddying the waters at all, I think that’s exactly what you’re doing!
The PL cannot decide on guilt itself. That’s what the independent panel is there to do. It is not there to allow for clubs to prove their innocence, it is there to hear both sides of the dispute and then come to an independent judgment. That’s the whole point of it and why they set it up in 2019 - it’s entirely independent.
The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction.
You seem to think the starting point is city are guilty of x. It isn’t. It’s the pl contends that city is guilty of x, they have to now prove it to that level of burden to the independent panel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who setup the 'independant panel' so who do they answer to? Who pays their bills?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, ultimately the premier league clubs. Not sure of the point of your question though?
If you’re saying it’s not independent enough for you, then I’m sure you’ll be backing the government wanting to put their own independent regulator in. Think only City of the main clubs agree with that though
Personally, particularly given the individuals involved, I’m not unhappy with the PLs arbitration process.
This is where you are confused. The independent panel is not an arbitration panel. They are a judicial panel. This not Man City and the Premier League going to CAS.
"The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction."
Which means this is heard at a civil standard, balance of probability and the onus being on the accused to prove their innocence instead of the crown standard of beyond reasonable doubt, onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
The same is used in libel, slander and defamation cases. I think this is why it's not up to the PL to prove guilt and up to City to prove a credible defence on balance of probability.
I know, amateur legal expert alert
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
This is where you are confused. The independent panel is not an arbitration panel. They are a judicial panel. This not Man City and the Premier League going to CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you need to tell them and the PL that, no wonder the government is getting involved!
Of course they’re an arbitration panel. That’s the whole sodding point they were set up!
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
"The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction."
Which means this is heard at a civil standard, balance of probability and the onus being on the accused to prove their innocence instead of the crown standard of beyond reasonable doubt, onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
The same is used in libel, slander and defamation cases. I think this is why it's not up to the PL to prove guilt and up to City to prove a credible defence on balance of probability.
I know, amateur legal expert alert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very amateur In civil cases the burden of proof is still on the claimant.
Technically you never prove innocence.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
This is where you are confused. The independent panel is not an arbitration panel. They are a judicial panel. This not Man City and the Premier League going to CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you need to tell them and the PL that, no wonder the government is getting involved!
Of course they’re an arbitration panel. That’s the whole sodding point they were set up!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quasi judicial process and not a judicial process. The only reason they have the panel (which they are paying for) is so that they cannot be accused of being the accuser and the judge.
The premier league is saying City have broken the rules. City have to literally show the panel they did not!
Its not a negotiation
What do you mean it’s not a judicial process, that’s what arbitration is! The arbitrators are there to be the judge, that’s the whole point of it and why they put the process in.
No one said it was a negotiation, it’s an arbitration. The PL has to prove to the judicial panel that City have broken their rules. The burden of proof is on the PL as in any arbitration.
Melts
Respectfully disagree my learned friend. In defamation cases for example, also heard to the same standard, it is up to the defamed to prove harm (material, reputational or financial) instead of the accused proving their innocence.
We had similar with the Suarez/Evra case all those years ago.
If you mean it’s not a judicial process as in it’s not heard before a judge in a court I get it, but like you said yourself it’s a judicial panel - by the fact it is a arbitration panel.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 47 seconds ago
Melts
Respectfully disagree my learned friend. In defamation cases for example, also heard to the same standard, it is up to the defamed to prove harm (material, reputational or financial) instead of the accused proving their innocence.
We had similar with the Suarez/Evra case all those years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that’s a comparable as you’re talking about the impact there rather than the act itself but even if you were, that’s validating what I said rather than countering it? Like you said, it’s on the claimant.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 seconds ago
What do you mean it’s not a judicial process, that’s what arbitration is! The arbitrators are there to be the judge, that’s the whole point of it and why they put the process in.
No one said it was a negotiation, it’s an arbitration. The PL has to prove to the judicial panel that City have broken their rules. The burden of proof is on the PL as in any arbitration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a dispute between two parties which is what you need arbitration for.
This is an accusation by the premier league which is heard by judicial panel to 'judge' if indeed the rules have been broken. The premier league has already presented the evidence and according to that charged City. City have not present their defence to disprove that evidence.
The judical panel will decide that. This is not arbitration between Man City and Premier league.
If they are found guilty and kicked out of the league (relagated) the usual is to take it to an arbitration court of appeals to argue fairness or if the processes set out were followed. Thats CAS. But they cannot appeal to that in this case because the panel is already quasi-judciial.
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
Just wait for Pep to go and you lot should clean up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Palmer Mate
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 seconds ago
What do you mean it’s not a judicial process, that’s what arbitration is! The arbitrators are there to be the judge, that’s the whole point of it and why they put the process in.
No one said it was a negotiation, it’s an arbitration. The PL has to prove to the judicial panel that City have broken their rules. The burden of proof is on the PL as in any arbitration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a dispute between two parties which is what you need arbitration for.
This is an accusation by the premier league which is heard by judicial panel to 'judge' if indeed the rules have been broken. The premier league has already presented the evidence and according to that charged City. City have not present their defence to disprove that evidence.
The judical panel will decide that. This is not arbitration between Man City and Premier league.
If they are found guilty and kicked out of the league (relagated) the usual is to take it to an arbitration court of appeals to argue fairness or if the processes set out were followed. Thats CAS. But they cannot appeal to that in this case because the panel is already quasi-judciial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The premier league has not presented any evidence, who do you think they have presented evidence to to think that? Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. The whole reason the PL don’t use CAS is because they have their own arbitration, which is initially the independent commission and then the appeals panel.
They have referred City to the commission. At that commission, the PL will present their evidence and then city will present theirs. The burden of proof that the PL have to satisfy to that panel is balance of probabilities.
In terms of you thinking they’re not an arbitration panel, this is the PLs own statement from when they were setting the whole thing up -
“The Premier League is the governing body of the Premier League football competition with responsibility for the organisation and regulation of the league, through the uniform application of it Rules to its Clubs and their officials and the implementation and administration of various dispute resolution processes as between them.
The Premier League has recently resolved to create a new Judicial Panel, that is a standing group of arbitrators with legal, financial, sporting and other relevant expertise, the members of which may be appointed to adjudicate independently on disciplinary cases referred to it by the Premier League Board and to resolve disputes between Clubs and Managers by way of arbitration.
Murray Rosen QC has been appointed by the Premier League Clubs as the first Chair of this new Judicial Panel and has been tasked, among other things, with recruiting approximately 12 suitable individuals as its initial members.”
"Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. "
This is getting tedious. Premier League is not a single entity. Its an organisation which is made up of all the clubs in the premier league including City. So are City bringing a case against themselves?
I mean seriously do you literally think that Man City are negotiating with rest of the clubs on whether they broke the rules they themselves signed up to?
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
"Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. "
This is getting tedious. Premier League is not a single entity. Its an organisation which is made up of all the clubs in the premier league including City. So are City bringing a case against themselves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hope that City lawyers go into the meeting with the same arrogance.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
"Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. "
This is getting tedious. Premier League is not a single entity. Its an organisation which is made up of all the clubs in the premier league including City. So are City bringing a case against themselves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could make it a lot less tedious by just doing some research or not asking daft questions like that one
City are a shareholder in the PL like all clubs in it are. They are not the same party.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 55 seconds ago
I really hope that City lawyers go into the meeting with the same arrogance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s been no statement of opinion in anything we’ve talked about so not sure what’s arrogant about any of it?
Sign in if you want to comment
115 infractions and City
Page 4 of 5
posted on 19/5/24
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 16 minutes ago
"It's impossible to have a decent debate about the topic on here, most have made their minds up despite the lack of eveidence being available"
Thinking there's no way City got from where they where to where they are now so quickly is legit isn't anything to do with the evidence. Chelsea went from nowhere to winning the league soon after Abramovich took over. People said then there's no way that's legit. How much is only just coming out now apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The odd thing with that sentiment is that if we are found guilty of the main charges, the most annoying thing to me is that we didn’t need to do it, they didn’t change our ability to do it legitimately or not.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 16 minutes ago
"It's impossible to have a decent debate about the topic on here, most have made their minds up despite the lack of eveidence being available"
Thinking there's no way City got from where they where to where they are now so quickly is legit isn't anything to do with the evidence. Chelsea went from nowhere to winning the league soon after Abramovich took over. People said then there's no way that's legit. How much is only just coming out now apparently.
------------------------------------------
First up, Matthew Harding was bank rolling Chelsea long before Roma.
There was no FFP back then, your transfer budget was down to the owners generosity.
City were in excellent financial shape when ASUG took over, minimal debt and a decent stadium that didn't need a fortune spending on it.
City didn't just become great overnight, we already had UEFA Cup football and it took another 10 years to reach the next level.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t and I’m not muddying the waters at all, I think that’s exactly what you’re doing!
The PL cannot decide on guilt itself. That’s what the independent panel is there to do. It is not there to allow for clubs to prove their innocence, it is there to hear both sides of the dispute and then come to an independent judgment. That’s the whole point of it and why they set it up in 2019 - it’s entirely independent.
The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction.
You seem to think the starting point is city are guilty of x. It isn’t. It’s the pl contends that city is guilty of x, they have to now prove it to that level of burden to the independent panel.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t and I’m not muddying the waters at all, I think that’s exactly what you’re doing!
The PL cannot decide on guilt itself. That’s what the independent panel is there to do. It is not there to allow for clubs to prove their innocence, it is there to hear both sides of the dispute and then come to an independent judgment. That’s the whole point of it and why they set it up in 2019 - it’s entirely independent.
The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction.
You seem to think the starting point is city are guilty of x. It isn’t. It’s the pl contends that city is guilty of x, they have to now prove it to that level of burden to the independent panel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who setup the 'independant panel' so who do they answer to? Who pays their bills?
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 6 minutes ago
It’s now an arbitration between two separate companies and the PL have to prove to that panel that City have breached those rules and likewise, City will try and prove they haven’t.
-------------------------------------------
I know you are trying to muddy the waters but to be honest it's really very simple.
This is not a dispute between two companies. Man city are actually taking part in a competition with a set of rules that they themselves agreed to comply with.
The premier league contends they have broken those rules and City have the right to prove they did not. The premier league set up an independent panel in a quasi judicial process to allow any club to set out their defence and prove they did not break those rules. Now City agreed to this entire process when they decided to take part in the competition.
Its really that simple. Man City have to prove to this panel that they did not break rules that they are accused of by the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t and I’m not muddying the waters at all, I think that’s exactly what you’re doing!
The PL cannot decide on guilt itself. That’s what the independent panel is there to do. It is not there to allow for clubs to prove their innocence, it is there to hear both sides of the dispute and then come to an independent judgment. That’s the whole point of it and why they set it up in 2019 - it’s entirely independent.
The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction.
You seem to think the starting point is city are guilty of x. It isn’t. It’s the pl contends that city is guilty of x, they have to now prove it to that level of burden to the independent panel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who setup the 'independant panel' so who do they answer to? Who pays their bills?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, ultimately the premier league clubs. Not sure of the point of your question though?
If you’re saying it’s not independent enough for you, then I’m sure you’ll be backing the government wanting to put their own independent regulator in. Think only City of the main clubs agree with that though
Personally, particularly given the individuals involved, I’m not unhappy with the PLs arbitration process.
posted on 19/5/24
This is where you are confused. The independent panel is not an arbitration panel. They are a judicial panel. This not Man City and the Premier League going to CAS.
posted on 19/5/24
"The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction."
Which means this is heard at a civil standard, balance of probability and the onus being on the accused to prove their innocence instead of the crown standard of beyond reasonable doubt, onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
The same is used in libel, slander and defamation cases. I think this is why it's not up to the PL to prove guilt and up to City to prove a credible defence on balance of probability.
I know, amateur legal expert alert
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
This is where you are confused. The independent panel is not an arbitration panel. They are a judicial panel. This not Man City and the Premier League going to CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you need to tell them and the PL that, no wonder the government is getting involved!
Of course they’re an arbitration panel. That’s the whole sodding point they were set up!
posted on 19/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
"The PL can’t just say someone is guilty, they have to prove it too. Like I’ve already said, the burden of proof in this arbitration is balance of probabilities, so it’s less than it was at CAS where it was comfortable satisfaction."
Which means this is heard at a civil standard, balance of probability and the onus being on the accused to prove their innocence instead of the crown standard of beyond reasonable doubt, onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
The same is used in libel, slander and defamation cases. I think this is why it's not up to the PL to prove guilt and up to City to prove a credible defence on balance of probability.
I know, amateur legal expert alert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very amateur In civil cases the burden of proof is still on the claimant.
Technically you never prove innocence.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
This is where you are confused. The independent panel is not an arbitration panel. They are a judicial panel. This not Man City and the Premier League going to CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you need to tell them and the PL that, no wonder the government is getting involved!
Of course they’re an arbitration panel. That’s the whole sodding point they were set up!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quasi judicial process and not a judicial process. The only reason they have the panel (which they are paying for) is so that they cannot be accused of being the accuser and the judge.
The premier league is saying City have broken the rules. City have to literally show the panel they did not!
Its not a negotiation
posted on 19/5/24
What do you mean it’s not a judicial process, that’s what arbitration is! The arbitrators are there to be the judge, that’s the whole point of it and why they put the process in.
No one said it was a negotiation, it’s an arbitration. The PL has to prove to the judicial panel that City have broken their rules. The burden of proof is on the PL as in any arbitration.
posted on 19/5/24
Melts
Respectfully disagree my learned friend. In defamation cases for example, also heard to the same standard, it is up to the defamed to prove harm (material, reputational or financial) instead of the accused proving their innocence.
We had similar with the Suarez/Evra case all those years ago.
posted on 19/5/24
If you mean it’s not a judicial process as in it’s not heard before a judge in a court I get it, but like you said yourself it’s a judicial panel - by the fact it is a arbitration panel.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 47 seconds ago
Melts
Respectfully disagree my learned friend. In defamation cases for example, also heard to the same standard, it is up to the defamed to prove harm (material, reputational or financial) instead of the accused proving their innocence.
We had similar with the Suarez/Evra case all those years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that’s a comparable as you’re talking about the impact there rather than the act itself but even if you were, that’s validating what I said rather than countering it? Like you said, it’s on the claimant.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 seconds ago
What do you mean it’s not a judicial process, that’s what arbitration is! The arbitrators are there to be the judge, that’s the whole point of it and why they put the process in.
No one said it was a negotiation, it’s an arbitration. The PL has to prove to the judicial panel that City have broken their rules. The burden of proof is on the PL as in any arbitration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a dispute between two parties which is what you need arbitration for.
This is an accusation by the premier league which is heard by judicial panel to 'judge' if indeed the rules have been broken. The premier league has already presented the evidence and according to that charged City. City have not present their defence to disprove that evidence.
The judical panel will decide that. This is not arbitration between Man City and Premier league.
If they are found guilty and kicked out of the league (relagated) the usual is to take it to an arbitration court of appeals to argue fairness or if the processes set out were followed. Thats CAS. But they cannot appeal to that in this case because the panel is already quasi-judciial.
posted on 19/5/24
*now
posted on 19/5/24
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
Just wait for Pep to go and you lot should clean up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Palmer Mate
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 seconds ago
What do you mean it’s not a judicial process, that’s what arbitration is! The arbitrators are there to be the judge, that’s the whole point of it and why they put the process in.
No one said it was a negotiation, it’s an arbitration. The PL has to prove to the judicial panel that City have broken their rules. The burden of proof is on the PL as in any arbitration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a dispute between two parties which is what you need arbitration for.
This is an accusation by the premier league which is heard by judicial panel to 'judge' if indeed the rules have been broken. The premier league has already presented the evidence and according to that charged City. City have not present their defence to disprove that evidence.
The judical panel will decide that. This is not arbitration between Man City and Premier league.
If they are found guilty and kicked out of the league (relagated) the usual is to take it to an arbitration court of appeals to argue fairness or if the processes set out were followed. Thats CAS. But they cannot appeal to that in this case because the panel is already quasi-judciial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The premier league has not presented any evidence, who do you think they have presented evidence to to think that? Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. The whole reason the PL don’t use CAS is because they have their own arbitration, which is initially the independent commission and then the appeals panel.
They have referred City to the commission. At that commission, the PL will present their evidence and then city will present theirs. The burden of proof that the PL have to satisfy to that panel is balance of probabilities.
In terms of you thinking they’re not an arbitration panel, this is the PLs own statement from when they were setting the whole thing up -
“The Premier League is the governing body of the Premier League football competition with responsibility for the organisation and regulation of the league, through the uniform application of it Rules to its Clubs and their officials and the implementation and administration of various dispute resolution processes as between them.
The Premier League has recently resolved to create a new Judicial Panel, that is a standing group of arbitrators with legal, financial, sporting and other relevant expertise, the members of which may be appointed to adjudicate independently on disciplinary cases referred to it by the Premier League Board and to resolve disputes between Clubs and Managers by way of arbitration.
Murray Rosen QC has been appointed by the Premier League Clubs as the first Chair of this new Judicial Panel and has been tasked, among other things, with recruiting approximately 12 suitable individuals as its initial members.”
posted on 19/5/24
"Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. "
This is getting tedious. Premier League is not a single entity. Its an organisation which is made up of all the clubs in the premier league including City. So are City bringing a case against themselves?
posted on 19/5/24
I mean seriously do you literally think that Man City are negotiating with rest of the clubs on whether they broke the rules they themselves signed up to?
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
"Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. "
This is getting tedious. Premier League is not a single entity. Its an organisation which is made up of all the clubs in the premier league including City. So are City bringing a case against themselves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 19/5/24
I really hope that City lawyers go into the meeting with the same arrogance.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
"Yes it absolutely is a dispute between two parties. "
This is getting tedious. Premier League is not a single entity. Its an organisation which is made up of all the clubs in the premier league including City. So are City bringing a case against themselves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could make it a lot less tedious by just doing some research or not asking daft questions like that one
City are a shareholder in the PL like all clubs in it are. They are not the same party.
posted on 19/5/24
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 55 seconds ago
I really hope that City lawyers go into the meeting with the same arrogance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s been no statement of opinion in anything we’ve talked about so not sure what’s arrogant about any of it?
Page 4 of 5