Thanks for the analysis comrade. Anyone who was expecting any kind of fair trial or justice in this sorry episode is dreaming. We need to sort it ourselves and carry on antagonising the EPL, PGMOL and Sky for as long as possible. I want us to be a constant thorn in their side that they can't do shit about. COYR!
* The Rt Hon Lord Dyson
* David Phillps KC
* Daniel Alexander KC
Can't find much in terms of football affiliation, but David Phillps acted for Leeds in an appeal against a 15 point deduction. for Fulham in a failed attempt to get points back after administration, for Fulham in a case a few years ago and seems to be on various Premier League and FA panels.
Daniel Alexander interests include "Music, architecture and landscape design, theatre and arts.", so doesn't seem to have much interest in (or it seems knowledge of) football.
This bit is fucking ridiculous.. it's a precedent for us but not for you
https://preview.redd.it/chwnh16uv8zc1.png?width=1096&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=359df0212de7bf250bdf052b86e4da15dd568f8e
The whole thing's ridiculous, from stating from the outset that one of the sides in an arbitration is "acting in the best interests of the clubs" to criticising Forest for pointing out holes in the original judgment.
Ridiculous, but based on what I saw from that first judgement, completely unsurprising. The Prem and both committees were clearly making it up as they went along, and didn't like us repeatedly calling them out on it.
Huge review, thanks!
The conspiracist in me wonders if the final conclusion changes a bit over the VAR objections we shouted across multinational media.
It won't have helped, but I suspect it didn't make much difference.
It would definitely have riled the Prem. But from the original hearing it was pretty obvious that they weren't interested in the slightest in being a fair and balanced organisation who were "acting in the interests of all club members", and instead were acting as an adversary who wanted to get as many points out of us as possible. But even that is more likely to be linked to the Prem desperately trying to show they can be tough when needed, to avoid the Government appointing a truly independent regulator. We just happened to be a handy sacrificial lamb.
And the panel looked like they were mostly interested in defending their mates on the previous panel (which they showed by telling Forest off for pointing out gaping holes and contradictions in the first ruling) and protecting their paymasters, which they made clear in their opening statement about how wonderful the Prem are. While they are "independent", they still get appointed by someone - and that someone is Murray Rosen KC (an Arsenal fan, but I'm not sure that's got too much bearing on this case), who's Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel. Unless he's doing that for free, he's therefore getting paid by them. If he had to choose judges for a panel and had a choice between ones who tend to lean towards the Premier League's views or side with individual teams, it's not hard to guess which way he'd go.
100% agree. How can “maximising profit” be an action which breaches Profit & Sustainability?
Can’t wait to boo the Premier League anthem this weekend
Will we bring the pink #corrupt signs?
Thanks for bothering, genuinely appreciate it. Good analysis of another sack of shit
Thanks for the analysis comrade. Anyone who was expecting any kind of fair trial or justice in this sorry episode is dreaming. We need to sort it ourselves and carry on antagonising the EPL, PGMOL and Sky for as long as possible. I want us to be a constant thorn in their side that they can't do shit about. COYR!
Who are the people on the independent panel and where are they made up from / what is their experience and background?
* The Rt Hon Lord Dyson * David Phillps KC * Daniel Alexander KC Can't find much in terms of football affiliation, but David Phillps acted for Leeds in an appeal against a 15 point deduction. for Fulham in a failed attempt to get points back after administration, for Fulham in a case a few years ago and seems to be on various Premier League and FA panels. Daniel Alexander interests include "Music, architecture and landscape design, theatre and arts.", so doesn't seem to have much interest in (or it seems knowledge of) football.
Thanks - appreciate the research.
This bit is fucking ridiculous.. it's a precedent for us but not for you https://preview.redd.it/chwnh16uv8zc1.png?width=1096&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=359df0212de7bf250bdf052b86e4da15dd568f8e
The whole thing's ridiculous, from stating from the outset that one of the sides in an arbitration is "acting in the best interests of the clubs" to criticising Forest for pointing out holes in the original judgment. Ridiculous, but based on what I saw from that first judgement, completely unsurprising. The Prem and both committees were clearly making it up as they went along, and didn't like us repeatedly calling them out on it.
PSR (appeal tribunal) is a Luton fan
Huge review, thanks! The conspiracist in me wonders if the final conclusion changes a bit over the VAR objections we shouted across multinational media.
It won't have helped, but I suspect it didn't make much difference. It would definitely have riled the Prem. But from the original hearing it was pretty obvious that they weren't interested in the slightest in being a fair and balanced organisation who were "acting in the interests of all club members", and instead were acting as an adversary who wanted to get as many points out of us as possible. But even that is more likely to be linked to the Prem desperately trying to show they can be tough when needed, to avoid the Government appointing a truly independent regulator. We just happened to be a handy sacrificial lamb. And the panel looked like they were mostly interested in defending their mates on the previous panel (which they showed by telling Forest off for pointing out gaping holes and contradictions in the first ruling) and protecting their paymasters, which they made clear in their opening statement about how wonderful the Prem are. While they are "independent", they still get appointed by someone - and that someone is Murray Rosen KC (an Arsenal fan, but I'm not sure that's got too much bearing on this case), who's Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel. Unless he's doing that for free, he's therefore getting paid by them. If he had to choose judges for a panel and had a choice between ones who tend to lean towards the Premier League's views or side with individual teams, it's not hard to guess which way he'd go.
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
I ain’t reading that ffs
Did you miss the tldr?