Midfield_General Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said: I'd love to believe this, just like I really wanted to believe that they were keeping a dignified silence in the lead up to the hearing and had an ace up their sleeve to play. Sadly, as has been pointed out many times of the last few weeks, wherever SR are concerned you should always lean heavily towards incompetence as the explanation. Because it always turns out the be right one. Every. Single. Time.
Holmes_and_Watson Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 36 minutes ago, BarberSaint said: There was no 'crime'. There was an alleged breach (admitted) of a thing that has no real weight in law directly: Uberrima Fides and breach of a specific article, the terms surrounding which had not been drafted anywhere near well enough for them to not be subject to serious scrutiny and certainly watering-down were they ever tested robustly. I went to the pictures with Uberrima Fides once. The Firm, as that's the sort of thing she liked. It were all right.
benjii Posted 32 minutes ago Posted 32 minutes ago (edited) CAS is an arbitral body, it's not a sovereign court. Any arbitration is only possible if the parties involve have signed a valid arbitration agreement. In this case, the EFL rules are the arbitration agreement and the arbitral panel was the band of eeejits cobbled together by the appointed resolution body. If the arbitration agreement says no recourse to CAS then it's binding. However, an arbitration agreement must still comply with the law and cannot be used to create perverse legal consequences. So a court challenge is still possible. I don't think we will do; but that's the framework. Edited 31 minutes ago by benjii 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now