[LU] This doesn't sound good!

[magardiner at aol.com]

I can't speak to how things are done on your side of the pond, but Stateside, arbitration confidentiality clauses generally run to disclosure of things occuring in the arbitration proceeding itself as well as the papers and evidence submitted.? They generally do NOT include the arguments TO BE MADE (future tense) at an arbitration.? Moreover, in this case, its not as if the issues hadn't been fully "briefed" in the press previously.

It was a silly thing to do -- yes.? But the most that'll probably happen is a monetary slap on the wrist.

MAG
San Diego Whites


Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:58:56 +0000
From: Jeremy Adams <jeremyadams03 at hotmail.com>
Subject: [LU] This doesn't sound good!
To: <leedslist at list.zetnet.co.uk>
Message-ID: <BAY116-W1483226C42DCC8759ECE30BAE30 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/apr/23/leedsunited
 Sounds like we broke the confidentiality rule in the arbitration! What the feck 
where Leeds thinking? I can now see the whole arbitration being declared null 
and void because of this. Just when I was beginning to think we might actually 
get some points back.


Best,

Jeremy