tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4137286492913353309.post8882075915022984604..comments2023-09-04T11:42:55.289+02:00Comments on Bubbleview: Inquiry, inquisition or the light at the end of the tunnel?Joppe -http://www.blogger.com/profile/09661438911950838399noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4137286492913353309.post-54956637210281497182009-01-09T10:10:00.000+01:002009-01-09T10:10:00.000+01:00True.I am not quite sure that this adresses your c...True.<BR/>I am not quite sure that this adresses your comment, but I think that since the second tribunal, that is determening the compensation, is a FA initiated one I presume that the FA will have some influence over the outcome. <BR/>For instance, if the FA/PL inquiry comes to the conclusion that the PL judgement of a £5 million fine was adequate and no further faults is found I doubt that they would be OK with a £30 million compensation to Sheffield.<BR/><BR/>I may be wrong but I think Sheffield should be the worrying part.Joppe -https://www.blogger.com/profile/09661438911950838399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4137286492913353309.post-13344394143349053122009-01-09T09:07:00.000+01:002009-01-09T09:07:00.000+01:00I don't think that this inquiry is able to overtur...I don't think that this inquiry is able to overturn the finding of the tribunal on damages itself, but it could increase West Ham's chances to overturn the finding of the Griffith panel at the High Court: If the FA/PL won't find any breaches of the rules after 27th April the High Court would have to consider these findings. <BR/>I think there are two proceedings at the High Court, the injunction of Sheffield Utd which has stopped WHU to move on with the CAS appeal and another claim by WHU trying to prove that the Griffith panel was wrong. The latter one can only succeed if the High Court finds immense faults or nullities in the arbitration panel's decision.RapidHammerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02220848831161942452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4137286492913353309.post-78336749352234766232009-01-08T21:45:00.000+01:002009-01-08T21:45:00.000+01:00I get your point. The stuff that happened after 27...I get your point. <BR/>The stuff that happened after 27 April is an integral part of the problem. <BR/>I just went with the wording in the FA statement, and it could maybe be a sign of how they see the issue.Joppe -https://www.blogger.com/profile/09661438911950838399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4137286492913353309.post-89105175991842866122009-01-08T20:59:00.000+01:002009-01-08T20:59:00.000+01:00Can you really separate the two parts in that way?...Can you really separate the two parts in that way? Doesn´t it say that it´ll look into the views expressed and that this particular views were that we broke even more rules after the decision that came the 27th of April 2007?<BR/><BR/>Or will they examine all their findings even though they only makes one example of those views?<BR/><BR/>Hmm, I wonder if my message made any sense at all? ;-)Dickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12029351232112013937noreply@blogger.com