Effectively the PL has been told by Tracey Crouch that they are not trusted to regulate themselves. This only strengthens Mike Ashley's CAT case.
I am wondering if the delay in arbitration relates to the decision in the Man City case? If that had gone ahead before the decision the findings and judgement would be private. That has now changed. The decision and judgement will now be public. NUFC has their transparency. Any wrongdoing will be within the judgement.
The Man City case. The decisions and judgements in PL arbitration hearings between the PL and members clubs should, in the public interest, be public. The Court of Appeal has created the precedent. They have effectively overruled the decision of the High Court in NUFC v Premier League indirectly. Hence why Nick De Marco is gloating. He has won. The decision and judgement in arbitration will now be made public. NUFC has their transparency and the PL cannot stop it. Ironically, it was Man City and PL that tried to stop the decision being made public. The PL cannot ask arbitration to keep matters private as they bound by the decision of a higher Court. This also effectively destroys the PL's argument for keeping CAT private. Ashley's legal team can refer to this pointing out the decision relating to transparency as the PL argued that CAT are subject to Rule 34 - a concurrent tribunal. I am therefore wondering if the delay with arbitration relates to this. De Marco and the PL legal team would know it was coming.
I am convinced that the Man City decision is the reason for adjournment. The PL appealed the publication of the arbitration decidion and judgement. If their appeal had been successful, the decision in NUFC v PL would have been overruled and would be private. The decision will impact the disclosure of evidence, particularly sensitive information and the presentation by both sides of their cases.
I am convinced that the Man City decision is the reason for adjournment. The PL appealed the publication of the arbitration decision and judgement. If their appeal had been successful, the decision in NUFC v PL would have been overruled and everything would be private. The decision of a higher Court would have impacted the case preparation, namely the disclosure of potential evidence, particularly sensitive information and the presentation by both sides of their cases. Hence adjournment. NUFC's placid statement suggests that this may be the reason.
Affirmed- confirmed. They have agreed with the decision in NUFC v PL. NUFC's case has influenced the Man City case, hence the possibility of adjournment due to this. This would affect evidence disclosure.
It does. The PL/ NUFC/ arbitration panel will have known that the decision was coming. It directly impacts the NUFC case. If the PL had won the appeal then arbitration would remain private and disclosure of evidence could include sensitive material. Because it is public, disclosure is affected as it is referenced in the eventual judgement. Evidence is referred to. It is also affects presentation of the case for both sides.
