abitration pannel?? You'd expect his colleague in Chambers to be able to spell "arbitration", "panel" and "determine" - yeah not a made up story!
....breaking news on BBC....Leeds Pub Explosion in Beckett Street...hmmm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Emmott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:54 PM Subject: [LU] Arbitration - Inside the pannel > From the Service Crew Website http://www.leedssc.org.uk/ & scroll down. > > This poster also gave good information about the original meeting when > 15pt penalty was imposed, so he treated as a respected source in those > fora. > > > "From a collegue in chambers... > > The abitration pannel are now looking at one question and one question > only - was the punishment of a 15-point deduction fair and just at the > time it was handed out. It is this question and this question only which > will determin Leeds' fate. > > Leeds, clearly, are saying no. The Football League are saying yes. > > The arguments have been (and I'm generalising here to avoid penning an > novel) as follows: > > Leeds United are saying that the didn't break any Football League rules > and, hence, the punishment is unfair. They are arguing that AT THE TIME of > their emergence from administration there was no statute on the FL books > for coming out of administration. Leeds say that the Football League > legislated specifically to deal with their situation in retrospect. > Essentially, Leeds argue that you can not flout a law prior to said law > being introduced and at the time of their "crime" the law was not in > place. > > The Football League's argument revolves around the vote of league clubs. > They say that the vote wasn't on whether Leeds United should be docked > points, but whether a 15 point deduction was fair for ANY club who failed > to emerge from administration according to new FL rules. Leeds, they say, > would simply be the first to be handed such a punishment. > > So: In summary, they are considering a question similar this: If you > punched somebody in the face, could you be convicted of assault if assault > was yet to be made illegal. Could you make rules to fit a crime in > retrospect. > > In simple legal-ese (i.e, was the deduction a fair and just punishment at > the time of it being handed out) the consensus seems to be no. Early > indications suggest that Leeds WILL get their 15 points back, and win > promotion to the Championship, with a recommendation that clubs affected > (Carlisle, Doncaster, Southend, Nottingham Forest) be awarded > "significant" financial compensation from the Football League. > > Ken has NOT been offered any points back yet (i.e five points as > settlement). > > That's it, in a nutshell." > > > > _______________________________________________ > the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators > accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. > Leedslist mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!! > DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!! > _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!! DELETE THE FOOTERS WHEN REPLYING YOU LAZY SODS!!!!
