comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're mixing a UEFA hearing in with court proceedings and it doesn't quite work that way. You file proceedings when negotiations or admissions of liability have been denied. Then you file court proceedings.
In this instance, UEFA have had a hearing so city will appeal this decision with COA or CAS. So it becomes a bit muddied in who is the defendant and who is the claimant at this point. I'd say city are the claimant's as it will be their appeal and them bringing court proceedings, which will make UEFA the Defendant in that case.
Speeches and oral submissions are left to the trial. You don't get heard if you fail to acknowledge those proceedings, so it isn't correct that a court will not hear City's case for conduct with UEFA.
My understanding from the info on this thread is that UEFA have chosen to have a hearing in the absence of City's attendance, that's totally different to Court proceedings and the right to be heard.
If the defendant in those proceedings fails to acknowledge, then the claimant can seek a judgement in default and the court will subsequently call a trial for an amount to be determined.
However, it doesn't end there because the defendant can apply for relief from sanction (which the judgement always gets set aside) and the defendant can then file their defence, with the proceedings to continue to trial. Court system hey! 🤷🏻♂️
Either way, we're not even at that point yet and I doubt what I've said above will happen, because they'll have a top law firm (both sides) making sure they hit the Court deadlines. 👍
“This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.”
Absolutely. Hopefully it doesn’t rumble on as long as Omer Riza case though!
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 12 minutes ago
“This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.”
Absolutely. Hopefully it doesn’t rumble on as long as Omer Riza case though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, it will be interesting to read the judgment and to read the submissions, in addition to the Judges adjudication of the matter. I should be able to get a copy once it's available in time. 👍
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're mixing a UEFA hearing in with court proceedings and it doesn't quite work that way.
--------
UEFA panel is a quasi judicial body so the rules of evidence and procedure will be as similar to a court of law as possible.
You file proceedings when negotiations or admissions of liability have been denied. Then you file court proceedings.
------
How can negotiations and admissions of liability be denied? That makes no sense and to be honest these first few paragraphs of your post are hard to bring together. I think you're referring to demand and notice of intention to sue which is an invitation to settle or engage in negotiation before filing anything in court. If this demand/notice is ignored or if negotiations fail, then court process starts when the first pleading is filed.
In this instance, UEFA have had a hearing so city will appeal this decision with COA or CAS. So it becomes a bit muddied in who is the defendant and who is the claimant at this point. I'd say city are the claimant's as it will be their appeal and them bringing court proceedings, which will make UEFA the Defendant in that case.
Speeches and oral submissions are left to the trial. You don't get heard if you fail to acknowledge those proceedings, so it isn't correct that a court will not hear City's case for conduct with UEFA.
My understanding from the info on this thread is that UEFA have chosen to have a hearing in the absence of City's attendance, that's totally different to Court proceedings and the right to be heard.
If the defendant in those proceedings fails to acknowledge, then the claimant can seek a judgement in default and the court will subsequently call a trial for an amount to be determined.
However, it doesn't end there because the defendant can apply for relief from sanction (which the judgement always gets set aside) and the defendant can then file their defence, with the proceedings to continue to trial. Court system hey! 🤷🏻♂️
Either way, we're not even at that point yet and I doubt what I've said above will happen, because they'll have a top law firm (both sides) making sure they hit the Court deadlines. 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with most of this.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 51 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're mixing a UEFA hearing in with court proceedings and it doesn't quite work that way.
--------
UEFA panel is a quasi judicial body so the rules of evidence and procedure will be as similar to a court of law as possible.
You file proceedings when negotiations or admissions of liability have been denied. Then you file court proceedings.
------
How can negotiations and admissions of liability be denied? That makes no sense and to be honest these first few paragraphs of your post are hard to bring together. I think you're referring to demand and notice of intention to sue which is an invitation to settle or engage in negotiation before filing anything in court. If this demand/notice is ignored or if negotiations fail, then court process starts when the first pleading is filed.
In this instance, UEFA have had a hearing so city will appeal this decision with COA or CAS. So it becomes a bit muddied in who is the defendant and who is the claimant at this point. I'd say city are the claimant's as it will be their appeal and them bringing court proceedings, which will make UEFA the Defendant in that case.
Speeches and oral submissions are left to the trial. You don't get heard if you fail to acknowledge those proceedings, so it isn't correct that a court will not hear City's case for conduct with UEFA.
My understanding from the info on this thread is that UEFA have chosen to have a hearing in the absence of City's attendance, that's totally different to Court proceedings and the right to be heard.
If the defendant in those proceedings fails to acknowledge, then the claimant can seek a judgement in default and the court will subsequently call a trial for an amount to be determined.
However, it doesn't end there because the defendant can apply for relief from sanction (which the judgement always gets set aside) and the defendant can then file their defence, with the proceedings to continue to trial. Court system hey! 🤷🏻♂️
Either way, we're not even at that point yet and I doubt what I've said above will happen, because they'll have a top law firm (both sides) making sure they hit the Court deadlines. 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with most of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm just referring to civil proceedings, I admit to not knowing about what type of action this is or where the process necessarily begins, I just know how you get there in civil proceedings. They'll of course be following a protocol, but I wouldn't know which one. 👍
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 39 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a leaf out of mambas book and spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia to research your response
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 7 hours, 44 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispute that ticket every time. 🤣👍
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 7 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 39 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a leaf out of mambas book and spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia to research your response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 7 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 39 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a leaf out of mambas book and spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia to research your response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah no way he did that, do you practice law Klopptimus?
I can and I have but at the minute I'm doing other things.
You?
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
I can and I have but at the minute I'm doing other things.
You?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal services. I'm no officer of the court and I don't take money for legal advice. 😎👍
Does anyone actually know the legal process for CAS. because it seems to me reading through a lot of these posts that the consensus is a hearing and 1 judge to decide the outcome. In Cas they nominate 1 judge, city also, and the same with UEFA. They then look at the merits of the appeal. The UEFA hearing was flawed. The flaws are numerous and have been exposed. When Cas threw out the city case 3 days before the UEFA verdict, it was noted that whilst they came down on the side of UEFA because of the no verdict they stated that the UEFA practises in this case were flawed and that they did show some sympathy to city's cause.
comment by sterlingsilvagoldera (U4995)
posted 10 hours, 12 minutes ago
Does anyone actually know the legal process for CAS. because it seems to me reading through a lot of these posts that the consensus is a hearing and 1 judge to decide the outcome. In Cas they nominate 1 judge, city also, and the same with UEFA. They then look at the merits of the appeal. The UEFA hearing was flawed. The flaws are numerous and have been exposed. When Cas threw out the city case 3 days before the UEFA verdict, it was noted that whilst they came down on the side of UEFA because of the no verdict they stated that the UEFA practises in this case were flawed and that they did show some sympathy to city's cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All explained here I believe:
https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html
thank you sissoko. It was clearly explained in R40 which was the point I referenced in my thread. In the postings it seems that the assumption is it is a court with a judge and a number of lawyers looking at the original findings and finally a jury verdict.
comment by sterlingsilvagoldera (U4995)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
thank you sissoko. It was clearly explained in R40 which was the point I referenced in my thread. In the postings it seems that the assumption is it is a court with a judge and a number of lawyers looking at the original findings and finally a jury verdict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that's the case, the panel is picked by both sides with a main arbitrator, or that's how I've interpreted it. There is no jury.
Sign in if you want to comment
Of course he is innocent
Page 2 of 2
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're mixing a UEFA hearing in with court proceedings and it doesn't quite work that way. You file proceedings when negotiations or admissions of liability have been denied. Then you file court proceedings.
In this instance, UEFA have had a hearing so city will appeal this decision with COA or CAS. So it becomes a bit muddied in who is the defendant and who is the claimant at this point. I'd say city are the claimant's as it will be their appeal and them bringing court proceedings, which will make UEFA the Defendant in that case.
Speeches and oral submissions are left to the trial. You don't get heard if you fail to acknowledge those proceedings, so it isn't correct that a court will not hear City's case for conduct with UEFA.
My understanding from the info on this thread is that UEFA have chosen to have a hearing in the absence of City's attendance, that's totally different to Court proceedings and the right to be heard.
If the defendant in those proceedings fails to acknowledge, then the claimant can seek a judgement in default and the court will subsequently call a trial for an amount to be determined.
However, it doesn't end there because the defendant can apply for relief from sanction (which the judgement always gets set aside) and the defendant can then file their defence, with the proceedings to continue to trial. Court system hey! 🤷🏻♂️
Either way, we're not even at that point yet and I doubt what I've said above will happen, because they'll have a top law firm (both sides) making sure they hit the Court deadlines. 👍
posted on 20/2/20
“This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.”
Absolutely. Hopefully it doesn’t rumble on as long as Omer Riza case though!
posted on 20/2/20
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 12 minutes ago
“This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.”
Absolutely. Hopefully it doesn’t rumble on as long as Omer Riza case though!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, it will be interesting to read the judgment and to read the submissions, in addition to the Judges adjudication of the matter. I should be able to get a copy once it's available in time. 👍
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're mixing a UEFA hearing in with court proceedings and it doesn't quite work that way.
--------
UEFA panel is a quasi judicial body so the rules of evidence and procedure will be as similar to a court of law as possible.
You file proceedings when negotiations or admissions of liability have been denied. Then you file court proceedings.
------
How can negotiations and admissions of liability be denied? That makes no sense and to be honest these first few paragraphs of your post are hard to bring together. I think you're referring to demand and notice of intention to sue which is an invitation to settle or engage in negotiation before filing anything in court. If this demand/notice is ignored or if negotiations fail, then court process starts when the first pleading is filed.
In this instance, UEFA have had a hearing so city will appeal this decision with COA or CAS. So it becomes a bit muddied in who is the defendant and who is the claimant at this point. I'd say city are the claimant's as it will be their appeal and them bringing court proceedings, which will make UEFA the Defendant in that case.
Speeches and oral submissions are left to the trial. You don't get heard if you fail to acknowledge those proceedings, so it isn't correct that a court will not hear City's case for conduct with UEFA.
My understanding from the info on this thread is that UEFA have chosen to have a hearing in the absence of City's attendance, that's totally different to Court proceedings and the right to be heard.
If the defendant in those proceedings fails to acknowledge, then the claimant can seek a judgement in default and the court will subsequently call a trial for an amount to be determined.
However, it doesn't end there because the defendant can apply for relief from sanction (which the judgement always gets set aside) and the defendant can then file their defence, with the proceedings to continue to trial. Court system hey! 🤷🏻♂️
Either way, we're not even at that point yet and I doubt what I've said above will happen, because they'll have a top law firm (both sides) making sure they hit the Court deadlines. 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with most of this.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 51 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Going Loco Like Sissoko - SUPER EUROPEAN WORLD CHAMPIONS (U10893)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 3 minutes ago
They seem to have been caught by this email. But as they did not disclose it (and why will they it is so damning) they trying to use some form of legal loophole to not allow the email as evidence.
And they wonder why people think they are guilty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they cannot continue to avoid or get away with that. If the Court compels them to do so and they fail to answer, they will be held in contempt. Will be interesting to see how this is dealt with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t continue getting away with what? Will be interesting though I agree!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your refusal to co-operate and disclose evidence to contrary. This is my understanding of the current position. Is that not correct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure how open the dialogue has been. I’m not sure we were even allowed representatives to be present for the hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you refused to cooperate. You can't be in when it suits you and out when it doesn't, so they kicked you out altogether. You don't want to provide info but want to question others on their info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, there is a big difference between a Court hearing an a UEFA hearing though.
I'd be interested to know more about how much dialogue was made between the parties. If UEFA refused their attendance at a hearing, this could well put City in a better position when at Court because their position will have been prejudiced by not being able to defend their position.
This is a really interesting topic in terms of the law aspect of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends. What I know is there's certain conditions which if are not met, then a party can be legally barred from the hearing. A hearing in such cases is a formality. Everything is in written form in the pleadings. The purpose of a hearing is to admit exhibits into evidence and to admit pleadings that form the core of the case as court documents, not to argue out the case. There can be a speech by the parties to accompany these pleadings and exhibits. It is often a formality in major cases as the real argument is in the pleadings.
So logically speaking, if you've refused to adduce any evidence or cooperate, then what business have you at the hearing apart from playing spoiler to an already advanced process, which has been going on for months with your knowledge. You can't just show up and insert yourself when its past a certain point. By refusing to cooperate you are therefore estopped from messing about with the hearing at a later date. The right to be heard is a pillar of law but it has its limitations and a party that has no respect for due process does not deserve it's protection.
But you're right it could be illegal. However, that would not get City off the hook. It would only force UEFA to sit again and include City. City would be forced to be a part of the process they were running from and the decision would probably be the same 2 year ban which leaves City right they started, but with the right to appeal that decision to the CAS again if they wish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you're mixing a UEFA hearing in with court proceedings and it doesn't quite work that way.
--------
UEFA panel is a quasi judicial body so the rules of evidence and procedure will be as similar to a court of law as possible.
You file proceedings when negotiations or admissions of liability have been denied. Then you file court proceedings.
------
How can negotiations and admissions of liability be denied? That makes no sense and to be honest these first few paragraphs of your post are hard to bring together. I think you're referring to demand and notice of intention to sue which is an invitation to settle or engage in negotiation before filing anything in court. If this demand/notice is ignored or if negotiations fail, then court process starts when the first pleading is filed.
In this instance, UEFA have had a hearing so city will appeal this decision with COA or CAS. So it becomes a bit muddied in who is the defendant and who is the claimant at this point. I'd say city are the claimant's as it will be their appeal and them bringing court proceedings, which will make UEFA the Defendant in that case.
Speeches and oral submissions are left to the trial. You don't get heard if you fail to acknowledge those proceedings, so it isn't correct that a court will not hear City's case for conduct with UEFA.
My understanding from the info on this thread is that UEFA have chosen to have a hearing in the absence of City's attendance, that's totally different to Court proceedings and the right to be heard.
If the defendant in those proceedings fails to acknowledge, then the claimant can seek a judgement in default and the court will subsequently call a trial for an amount to be determined.
However, it doesn't end there because the defendant can apply for relief from sanction (which the judgement always gets set aside) and the defendant can then file their defence, with the proceedings to continue to trial. Court system hey! 🤷🏻♂️
Either way, we're not even at that point yet and I doubt what I've said above will happen, because they'll have a top law firm (both sides) making sure they hit the Court deadlines. 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with most of this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm just referring to civil proceedings, I admit to not knowing about what type of action this is or where the process necessarily begins, I just know how you get there in civil proceedings. They'll of course be following a protocol, but I wouldn't know which one. 👍
posted on 20/2/20
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
posted on 21/2/20
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 39 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a leaf out of mambas book and spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia to research your response
posted on 21/2/20
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 7 hours, 44 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispute that ticket every time. 🤣👍
posted on 21/2/20
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 7 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 39 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a leaf out of mambas book and spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia to research your response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one.
posted on 21/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 7 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 39 minutes ago
Fack me you two league eagles. Next time I get a parking ticket I am posting here for advice from you two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a leaf out of mambas book and spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia to research your response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah no way he did that, do you practice law Klopptimus?
posted on 21/2/20
I can and I have but at the minute I'm doing other things.
You?
posted on 21/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
I can and I have but at the minute I'm doing other things.
You?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal services. I'm no officer of the court and I don't take money for legal advice. 😎👍
posted on 22/2/20
Does anyone actually know the legal process for CAS. because it seems to me reading through a lot of these posts that the consensus is a hearing and 1 judge to decide the outcome. In Cas they nominate 1 judge, city also, and the same with UEFA. They then look at the merits of the appeal. The UEFA hearing was flawed. The flaws are numerous and have been exposed. When Cas threw out the city case 3 days before the UEFA verdict, it was noted that whilst they came down on the side of UEFA because of the no verdict they stated that the UEFA practises in this case were flawed and that they did show some sympathy to city's cause.
posted on 22/2/20
comment by sterlingsilvagoldera (U4995)
posted 10 hours, 12 minutes ago
Does anyone actually know the legal process for CAS. because it seems to me reading through a lot of these posts that the consensus is a hearing and 1 judge to decide the outcome. In Cas they nominate 1 judge, city also, and the same with UEFA. They then look at the merits of the appeal. The UEFA hearing was flawed. The flaws are numerous and have been exposed. When Cas threw out the city case 3 days before the UEFA verdict, it was noted that whilst they came down on the side of UEFA because of the no verdict they stated that the UEFA practises in this case were flawed and that they did show some sympathy to city's cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All explained here I believe:
https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html
posted on 23/2/20
thank you sissoko. It was clearly explained in R40 which was the point I referenced in my thread. In the postings it seems that the assumption is it is a court with a judge and a number of lawyers looking at the original findings and finally a jury verdict.
posted on 23/2/20
comment by sterlingsilvagoldera (U4995)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
thank you sissoko. It was clearly explained in R40 which was the point I referenced in my thread. In the postings it seems that the assumption is it is a court with a judge and a number of lawyers looking at the original findings and finally a jury verdict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure that's the case, the panel is picked by both sides with a main arbitrator, or that's how I've interpreted it. There is no jury.
Page 2 of 2