The mancityfans.net football forum

https://twitter.com/cityreport_/status/ ... 27904?s=21

Not at all clear what this is about but it can’t be anything to do with the Super League.

Fuck me it’s not another FFP is it?

Can’t be anything major, otherwise the FA would have made a huge announcement and big song and dance about it.

Isn't this the one to do with us signing some kid before we were allowed to? Or did that get settled?

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... sc.Default)

This is the City of Moscow judgement referred to I think. Covers confidentiality of arbitration. Nothing to do with football as such but is apparently relevant here.

It appears both sides are objecting to the arbitration. Intriguing. I can’t remember whether the potential Premier League FFP case against us was resolved. It was separate from UEFA’s case and would have related to any supposed breach of the Premier League’s FFP rules.

There’s a report on the BBC about Barry Bennell and the child abuse case. Maybe it’s to do with that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56842621

Not sure that has anything to do with the Premier League though.

The hits just keep on coming ! Don’t think we will ever be able to fully enjoy our great football .

Possible that the Prem/FA forced us to sell Kolarov because he was taking the piss out of the rest of the league? And City are taking legal action against them

Mase wrote:Possible that the Prem/FA forced us to sell Kolarov because he was taking the piss out of the rest of the league? And City are taking legal action against them

https://youtu.be/jDYxIntaQug
You can't just do shit like this and expect to get away without repercussions.
#bringbackfuninfooty

Apologies but I feel it is justified to inflict another paste from a practising lawyer in the other place on this topic

"Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.

The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.

Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.

The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.

Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.

That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.

That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.

One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).

What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.

So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season."

johnny crossan wrote:Apologies but I feel it is justified to inflict another paste from a practising lawyer in the other place on this topic

"Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.

The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.

Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.

The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.

Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.

That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.

That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.

One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).

What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.

So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season."

Yeah but what does Andy Hinchcliffe think about it ?

City64 wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:Apologies but I feel it is justified to inflict another paste from a practising lawyer in the other place on this topic

"Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.

The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.

Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.

The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.

Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.

That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.

That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.

One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).

What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.

So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season."

Yeah but what does Andy Hinchcliffe think about it ?

Fuck nose.

Simister wrote:

City64 wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:Apologies but I feel it is justified to inflict another paste from a practising lawyer in the other place on this topic

"Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.

The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.

Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.

The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.

Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.

That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.

That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.

One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).

What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.

So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season."

Yeah but what does Andy Hinchcliffe think about it ?

Fuck nose.

Fell off my chair laughing

City64 wrote:

johnny crossan wrote:Apologies but I feel it is justified to inflict another paste from a practising lawyer in the other place on this topic

"Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening.

The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and the question of whether the judgment dealing with our appeal should be published. Two separate decisions - referred to in the order giving permission to appeal as the merits judgment and the publication judgment - were made by the Judge.

Even though neither party wanted the outcome of the appeal to be published, the Judge decided that she should publicise it nonetheless. City have appealed to the Court of Appeal against that decision and that appeal is actually supported by the PL. The Judge has agreed not to publish until the Court of Appeal has decided what should happen. The Court of Appeal is not sure it has jurisdiction to hear such an appeal but has given permission anyway, with the question of jurisdiction to be argued at the appeal. So there will be no publication until the appeal has been heard.

The Court of Appeal has, however, spotted another point, which goes towards the merits of the decision rather than the issue of publication. That is, there may be some sort of in-built bias in the selection of the arbitrator. So if the premier league's rules say for instance 'any dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the PL' that might be said to be a sort of in-built bias. If the Court accepted this point, the whole arbitration would be null and void, and City and the PL would go again with a fresh arbitrator.

Okay so what's behind this? What we know is that there are ongoing disciplinary proceedings between PL and City - one of City's arguments is that if there is going to be publication, it should be after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. So it follows that the arbitration and the disciplinary proceedings concern the same subject matter.

That suggests to me that the PL have instituted disciplinary proceedings of some form against us, and we have said 'You can't do that.' One situation in which we might have said that is if there was an allegation that was time-barred, for instance.

That preliminary issue seems to have been decided against us in arbitration, we didn't like the outcome so we appealed, but lost the appeal. Now we are appealing again, with the permission of the Court of Appeal. In part, we don't want this being made public (and the PL agrees it shouldn't be) but the Judge decided otherwise.

One plausible possibility that occurs to me is that the disciplinary proceedings are FFP related, and the ensuing desire for absolute confidentiality arises in part from the constant leaks to the media during the UEFA disciplinary proceedings. I stress this is just one possibility. I also stress that if this is right, what it means is that the disciplinary proceedings have not really got going, but we have tried to shut it down right at the outset but have not succeeded. That doesn't mean we won't win when the disciplinary proceedings are actually heard (if they ever are).

What it does mean is that this will not get further publicity until the appeal has been determined. That is likely to take 6-12 months in itself. If our appeal against the publication order fails, we will know what it's all about at that stage.

So, for the time being, stand down, blues. Unless someone leaks it - which might well be a contempt of court given what the court has ordered about the appeal being heard behind closed doors - we are not going to hear any more about this until well into next season."

Yeah but what does Andy Hinchcliffe think about it ?

You suggesting Andy Hinchcliffe can actually think?

[Edit: Oops, didnt see the second sheet, dated 14th April, ignore me.]

Could it be anything to do with the Premier League asking all the 'big six' executives to step down from various PL working-group roles or be voted out? (Soriano sits on the 'Club Strategic Advisory Group' apparently) .The document is dated 20th (Tuesday) which is the day the other 14 'stakeholder' clubs met.

This has appeared in the mail, fucking media throwing shit when we are on the verge of winning titles again, coincidence? No way, it will be hate week in the press this week, what a shower of cunts our media are.
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... rules.html

Harry Dowd scored wrote:This has appeared in the mail, fucking media throwing shit when we are on the verge of winning titles again, coincidence? No way, it will be hate week in the press this week, what a shower of cunts our media are.
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... rules.html

Please don't click the link.

There's nothing of any substance in the article.

Harry Dowd scored wrote:This has appeared in the mail, fucking media throwing shit when we are on the verge of winning titles again, coincidence? No way, it will be hate week in the press this week, what a shower of cunts our media are.
.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... rules.html

On the BBC sports news this morning , some thicko woman kept blabbing on about Critical game today , rags win City don't get crowned champions . Scouse struggle for CL place . Scouse win and CL place chance still on and City Chumps !

Completely failing to point out that there are four more games for City to get the three points needed . Buffoon . No wonder you're in a mess, when bullshit like this gets perpetuated day in day out.