[LU] Arbitration isn't about keeping anybody happy

[magardiner at aol.com]

Mark:

You're missing my central point:? THE ARBITRATORS ARE ULTIMATELY NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

Your analysis as to the threshold issue is spot on.? You're absolutely right....if they follow the law (and they probably will) than if they buy our argument that we were punished for breaching a rule that did not exist they will rule taht no penalty can be assessed.? But if they don't follow the law....

But your analysis of the second level is flawed.? If they rule that punishment CAN be ex post facto then that opens the door to all those "looney" outcomes.? At that point they could easily assess a penalty that is somewhere between 1 and 15 points.

MAG


-----Original Message-----
From: mark.humphries at blueyonder.co.uk
To: magardiner at aol.com
Cc: leedslist at list.zetnet.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 8:50 am
Subject: Re: [LU] Arbitration isn't about keeping anybody happy



Not if Leeds win their main argument, that being they were punished for
the breach of a rule which did not exist at the time.

If the panel agree with that, then no punishment can be due.

I also think (but I would do) that Leeds also have a very good case even
if the panel allow (in principle) the punishment to be retrospective - the
punishment was excessive, and did not fit the crime, and crucially not
aimed at the right party.  It was KPMGs decision to scrap the CVA, not the
(new) owners, so why should they be punished?

Even taking the deterrent argument, how on earth could it be deemed a
deterrent to clubs when it isnt ever going to be their decision about how
to sell a club in administration?!

I cannot see any 'looney' outcome of the tribunal, to me Leeds have 2 good
shots at getting the penalty overturned.  I can also see the FL having to
scrap this rule and come up with something different for future cases.

> Inasmuch as the League?itself is one of the?parties to the?Arbitration
> proceeding the range of possible remedies available to the panel would
> seem to be limited only by their imagination.? It?would, it seems, include
> "three up" with or without play-offs and all sorts of other "loony ideas."