Financial Fair Play investigation

[catcherintherye]

It doesn't.

CAS is an arbitration service in essence. The Premier League is not signed up to CAS and has a different arbitration procedure. The Premier League's contracts are not governed by CAS.

Ok. Thank you for the update.

The PL would be challengable within a legal court though, at some level.

Unfortunately due to Brexit, that will probably not be a European court.

 

[catcherintherye]

Man City has already taken its case with the Premier League to the High Court followed by the Appeal Court. They were then denied grounds to appeal to the Supreme Court and told to abide by the rules they signed up to.

But theoretically, if a case was strong enough, it could go to the Supreme court?

 

[gwladysnight]

But theoretically, if a case was strong enough, it could go to the Supreme court?

I think you misunderstand the role of the UKSC. Its role is to ultimately decide on highly nuanced legal arguments. It deals with on average less than a hundred cases a year.

If we have a strong case then its chances of getting to the UKSC are nil.

A strong case would mean the first Independent panel rule in our favour. To get to the UKSC we would need the Independent panel to ignore the legal merits of our case followed by the follow-up panel doing likewise. Then the lower courts would need to agree with the previous rulings but allow an appeal. The high court and then the appeal court would need to follow suit.

For that to happen it would have to be an incredibly complex defence that divides legal opinion.

We couldn't be further away from that, unfortunately. Our entire defence is premised on uncrystallised losses that 3 years on, we still can't quantify. We would be laughed out of court.

 

[Cameron Manning]

Could we take it to the Hague or the Supreme Court though?

It hasn’t even reached a magistrates court yet, we don’t even know what they are charging us with, even if we are getting charged!!

 

[catcherintherye]

I think you misunderstand the role of the UKSC. Its role is to ultimately decide on highly nuanced legal arguments. It deals with on average less than a hundred cases a year.

If we have a strong case then its chances of getting to the UKSC are nil.

A strong case would mean the first Independent panel rule in our favour. To get to the UKSC we would need the Independent panel to ignore the legal merits of our case followed by the follow-up panel doing likewise. Then the lower courts would need to agree with the previous rulings but allow an appeal. The high court and then the appeal court would need to follow suit.

For that to happen it would have to be an incredibly complex defence that divides legal opinion.

We couldn't be further away from that, unfortunately. Our entire defence is premised on uncrystallised losses that 3 years on, we still can't quantify. We would be laughed out of court.

But I think you're answering a different question to the one I'm asking mate.

I'm not asking whether we would do so in our situation, or whether we would be successful, which is ultimately subjective.

I'm asking theoretically, could an unrelated case end up at the Supreme Court?

 

[Osamabindiesel]

And Everton never touched anyone inappropriately again

 

[gwladysnight]

But I think you're answering a different question to the one I'm asking mate.

I'm not asking whether we would do so in our situation, or whether we would be successful, which is ultimately subjective.

I'm asking theoretically, could an unrelated case end up at the Supreme Court?

In theory, pretty much every legal case could end up in the UKSC.

Then again in theory every team that enters the FA Cup could conceivably win it.

There are two provisoes though. Independent panels and arbitration are there to make legal challenges very unlikely. Furthermore not having a rational quantifiable defence makes legal challenges absolutely futile. I would be amazed if we could even get a barrister to argue our case.

 

[Bluerover]

In theory, pretty much every legal case could end up in the UKSC.

Then again in theory every team that enters the FA Cup could conceivably win it.

There are two provisoes though. Independent panels and arbitration are there to make legal challenges very unlikely. Furthermore not having a rational quantifiable defence makes legal challenges absolutely futile. I would be amazed if we could even get a barrister to argue our case.

The independent panel must abide by the rules of law including fair procedure and natural justice.

Failure to do would open the possibility of an action to quash a decision of the panel.

It is a quasi judicial body as far as I can see.

 

[gwladysnight]

The independent panel must abide by the rules of law including fair procedure and natural justice.

Failure to do would open the possibility of an action to quash a decision of the panel.

It is a quasi judicial body as far as I can see.

The Premier League appoints a panel of 15 people to its Premier league Judiciary panel. There is then a further 5 man panel for Appeals.

The Chair is Murray Rossen KC. He then selects two other panel members. Those members are appointed because of their legal, financial, sporting or other relevant expertise.

In our case, I would imagine it would be Rossen as the legal expert, a financial expert, and a third-panel member.

We are talking about an Independent panel of experts who have been vetted by the Premier League board and also the member clubs.

 

[Bluerover]

The Premier League appoints a panel of 15 people to its Premier league Judiciary panel. There is then a further 5 man panel for Appeals.

The Chair is Murray Rossen KC. He then selects two other panel members. Those members are appointed because of their legal, financial, sporting or other relevant expertise.

In our case, I would imagine it would be Rossen as the legal expert, a financial expert, and a third-panel member.

We are talking about an Independent panel of experts who have been vetted by the Premier League board and also the member clubs.

That's fine.

It does not alter the fact that both the panel and the Appeals body are acting in a quasi judicial role.

The usual rules of evidence, natural justice and due process apply to them and any decision may be challenged on a point of law.

The fact a barrister is panel Chair, albeit a KC, does not change this.

Every legal person, including an incorporated football club, has rights regarding this type of procedure, and the panel must act within the laws.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's fine.

It does not alter the fact that both the panel and the Appeals body are acting in a quasi judicial role.

The usual rules of evidence, natural justice and due process apply to them and any decision may be challenged on a point of law.

The fact a barrister is panel Chair, albeit a KC, does not change this.

Every legal person, including an incorporated football club, has rights regarding this type of procedure, and the panel must act within the laws.

I am interested in this legal side.

I seem to recall that both Derby especially and Sheffield Wednesday to some extent were claiming that the EFL actions against them were unlawful. However this was proven (?) Not go be the case, I suppose one can throw the term around as a way of trying it on too. Unlawful to charge or refer etc. Perhaps was a bargaining tactic to try and scare off the EFL.

 

[gwladysnight]

That's fine.

It does not alter the fact that both the panel and the Appeals body are acting in a quasi judicial role.

The usual rules of evidence, natural justice and due process apply to them and any decision may be challenged on a point of law.

The fact a barrister is panel Chair, albeit a KC, does not change this.

Every legal person, including an incorporated football club, has rights regarding this type of procedure, and the panel must act within the laws.

The whole point of arbitration is to reduce the likelihood of legal action. To that end, the professionals appointed as arbitrators are experts at following the rules of evidence, natural evidence and due process.

As for challenging on a point of law the problem with that is that the Independent panel will make a judgement based on the balance of probabilities. To overturn that you would have to show that the panel had made a fundamental error.

 

[everton fan number one]

The whole point of arbitration is to reduce the likelihood of legal action. To that end, the professionals appointed as arbitrators are experts at following the rules of evidence, natural evidence and due process.

As for challenging on a point of law the problem with that is that the Independent panel will make a judgement based on the balance of probabilities. To overturn that you would have to show that the panel had made a fundamental error.

For context numerous countries worldwide have signed up to treaties agreeing not to dispute arbitral awards and to uphold foreign arbitral awards. There is a massive onus on upholding them to avoid wasting court time with full trials. Courts will not see it as their role to scrutinise each and every award. So it’s not a case of “yeah natural justice”, we can challenge it if we don’t like the outcome. We could try, but we’d be doomed to fail.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

For context numerous countries worldwide have signed up to treaties agreeing not to dispute arbitral awards and to uphold foreign arbitral awards. There is a massive onus on upholding them to avoid wasting court time with full trials. Courts will not see it as their role to scrutinise each and every award. So it’s not a case of “yeah natural justice”, we can challenge it if we don’t like the outcome. We could try, but we’d be doomed to fail.

Unless the Panel and PL had made a total mockery of the process then the bar is very high to get it overturned at court.

 

[Walken]

Is there anything in the chat about Leicester and Chelsea waiting until a new financial year to sack their gaffers? Feels like there is quite a bit of fallout coming.