| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! 20:55 - May 21 with 17444 views | MattFinish |
I’ve just started doing a bit of digging and have just found this.
I found the Independent Disciplinary Commission transcript from our hearing. They were heard before His Honour Philip Sycamore, Lydia Banerjee and David Winnie. They were the independent and impartial panel.
Only ……… when I did a bit more digging I found this:
Lydia Banerjee is a sports and employment law barrister at Littleton Chambers in London. Her direct links to Middlesbrough stem from her professional legal practice, where she has advised and represented Middlesbrough F.C. in various sports-related and regulatory matters.
Impartial my @rse !!! |  | | |  |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:34 - May 21 with 2031 views | saintpaz |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:27 - May 21 by DorsetIan |
Thank you.
Jesus!
I thought it was bad enough they had an ex- Boro player on the panel.
If this is true (and I’m just being ultra cautious here) it’s unbelievable.
Surely she’d have to declare her interest and surely Saints would object.
Something either stinks to high heaven or doesn’t add up. |
that's my point though. Assuming that Saints would have asked who was in this panel beforehand, just a quick research on who they were and voila you can find the info.
Can't have a panel that has links to one of the parties involved, it's like having a ref referee a match with his team involved. Non-starter...I think you are clutching |  | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:37 - May 21 with 2011 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:34 - May 21 by saintpaz |
that's my point though. Assuming that Saints would have asked who was in this panel beforehand, just a quick research on who they were and voila you can find the info.
Can't have a panel that has links to one of the parties involved, it's like having a ref referee a match with his team involved. Non-starter...I think you are clutching |
What’s your point. That it can’t be true? |  |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:45 - May 21 with 1957 views | saintpaz |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:37 - May 21 by DorsetIan |
What’s your point. That it can’t be true? |
That Saints would have known who was in this independent committee panel beforehand. And if these people had links to Boro then they would have rejected having these people as it would have been a conflict of interest.
If they didn't then that would have been a school boy error (although we are good at those as we now know!) and if they only just realised now then couldn't even appeal as we already had our chance [Post edited 21 May 23:50]
| | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:53 - May 21 with 1924 views | dirk_doone |
The whole case was rushed through in a much shorter period than is normally required for investigations of this kind, in order to get Middlesbrough into the final. There probably wasn't even time to delve into the Middlesbrough connections of the members of the Independent Commission. Cases like this usually take weeks or even months before a verdict is given. [Post edited 21 May 23:57]
|  |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:58 - May 21 with 1918 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:45 - May 21 by saintpaz |
That Saints would have known who was in this independent committee panel beforehand. And if these people had links to Boro then they would have rejected having these people as it would have been a conflict of interest.
If they didn't then that would have been a school boy error (although we are good at those as we now know!) and if they only just realised now then couldn't even appeal as we already had our chance [Post edited 21 May 23:50]
|
So you’re saying that either
It’s not true
Or it’s true and a schoolboy error
I agree that it could be one of these.
But there is a duty on judges to declare their interests, so there is another possibility here that interests were not declared, Saints did not know and took on good faith that panel members would obviously have no Boro connections.
if it is true, then sure there is a question of why Saints did not pick this up, or if they did why nothing was done, but the bigger question is why two people with Boro links were on the ‘indepedent’ panel in the first place?
The only version that doesn’t raise questions is that the apparent info about these two panel members is not correct. | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:58 - May 21 with 1915 views | saintpaz |
where is the link for where it states these people were part of the Independent Disciplinary Commission of the 1st hearing? I can't find that info anywhere online.
Also, who was in the appeal hearing? That would have been different people to the first, of course. Did they also have any links to Boro? [Post edited 22 May 0:03]
| | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:00 - May 22 with 1914 views | saintpaz |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:53 - May 21 by dirk_doone |
The whole case was rushed through in a much shorter period than is normally required for investigations of this kind, in order to get Middlesbrough into the final. There probably wasn't even time to delve into the Middlesbrough connections of the members of the Independent Commission. Cases like this usually take weeks or even months before a verdict is given. [Post edited 21 May 23:57]
|
of course they would want to know who they are talking in front of. That would have been the basic first thing you would ask. | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:00 - May 22 with 1906 views | dirk_doone |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:58 - May 21 by DorsetIan |
So you’re saying that either
It’s not true
Or it’s true and a schoolboy error
I agree that it could be one of these.
But there is a duty on judges to declare their interests, so there is another possibility here that interests were not declared, Saints did not know and took on good faith that panel members would obviously have no Boro connections.
if it is true, then sure there is a question of why Saints did not pick this up, or if they did why nothing was done, but the bigger question is why two people with Boro links were on the ‘indepedent’ panel in the first place?
The only version that doesn’t raise questions is that the apparent info about these two panel members is not correct. |
Because it was rushed through so fast that there was not time to investigate the Middlesbrough connections of the Independent Commission. Usually several weeks notice would be given to the defence. [Post edited 22 May 0:04]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:34 - May 22 with 1859 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 23:58 - May 21 by saintpaz |
where is the link for where it states these people were part of the Independent Disciplinary Commission of the 1st hearing? I can't find that info anywhere online.
Also, who was in the appeal hearing? That would have been different people to the first, of course. Did they also have any links to Boro? [Post edited 22 May 0:03]
|
The names are on the top of the written judgment.
It’s irrelevant who the appeal judges were. The three we’re talking about made the decision. | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:36 - May 22 with 1854 views | DorsetIan |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:00 - May 22 by saintpaz |
of course they would want to know who they are talking in front of. That would have been the basic first thing you would ask. |
You’ve said that. But you don’t know and you can’t explain any of it. | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:49 - May 22 with 1843 views | DorsetIan |
91.4 Save in the case of a Player Related Dispute Commission and subject to Regulation 91.2 and 91.3, the
parties to proceedings before a Disciplinary Commission shall be:
91.1.1 The League (the ‘Claimant’); and
91.1.2 the Club, Official, Player or other individual (in each case current or former) allegedly in breach
of these Regulations (the ‘Respondent’).
The parties to proceedings before a Player Related Dispute Commission shall be a Player and a Club.
Where the proceedings are an appeal against a strict liability penalty in accordance with Regulation
88.2, the party lodging the Appeal will be the Claimant, and The League shall be the Respondent.
A Disciplinary Commission shall consist of:
91.4.1 a chairperson who shall be either:
(a) a qualified solicitor or barrister; or
(b) a ‘member’ or ‘fellow’ of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,
in either case with at least 5 years post-qualification experience; and
91.4.2 two suitably qualified side members,
each of whom shall be appointed by Sports Resolutions (or such other body as the Board may from time
to time determine) PROVIDED ALWAYS that:
(a) all members must be independent of the parties and able to render an impartial
decision; | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:55 - May 22 with 1834 views | DorsetIan |
Appendix 2
Any member of an Applicable Tribunal (Tribunal Member) may be challenged if circumstances exist
that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. A party who intends to
challenge any Tribunal Member shall send to the other party or parties a notice of challenge setting out
the reasons for its challenge within 7 days after notification of the appointment of the challenged
Tribunal Member, or within 7 days from the date when the party making the challenge is informed of
any facts and circumstances which may give rise to such a challenge (if such date is subsequent to the
receipt of notification of appointment). A copy of the notice shall be sent simultaneously to the Tribunal
Member who is challenged and the other members of the Applicable Tribunal and the League. The
notification shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the challenge | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 01:00 - May 22 with 1822 views | dirk_doone |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:55 - May 22 by DorsetIan |
Appendix 2
Any member of an Applicable Tribunal (Tribunal Member) may be challenged if circumstances exist
that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. A party who intends to
challenge any Tribunal Member shall send to the other party or parties a notice of challenge setting out
the reasons for its challenge within 7 days after notification of the appointment of the challenged
Tribunal Member, or within 7 days from the date when the party making the challenge is informed of
any facts and circumstances which may give rise to such a challenge (if such date is subsequent to the
receipt of notification of appointment). A copy of the notice shall be sent simultaneously to the Tribunal
Member who is challenged and the other members of the Applicable Tribunal and the League. The
notification shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the challenge |
No wonder it was rushed through, apart from the need to get Middlesbrough into the final. [Post edited 22 May 7:44]
| |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 01:25 - May 22 with 1801 views | DorsetIan |
Boro message boards are questioning the Bannerjee Boro connection. Saying others represented them.
I haven’t been able to find any DIRECT online evidence of her representing them. Not to say she didn’t, just not been able to corroborate AI summary. | |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 01:47 - May 22 with 1783 views | dirk_doone |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 01:25 - May 22 by DorsetIan |
Boro message boards are questioning the Bannerjee Boro connection. Saying others represented them.
I haven’t been able to find any DIRECT online evidence of her representing them. Not to say she didn’t, just not been able to corroborate AI summary. |
Of course they are.
[Post edited 22 May 7:11]
| |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:02 - May 22 with 1660 views | yateleysaint |
I’m just surprised they didn’t get Bob Mortimer. |  |
| You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into. |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:29 - May 22 with 1612 views | FredTheLeg |
Is there any actual source for this? AI isn't a source and effectively is a just really quick data gatherer and is very often wrong.
None of the sources in that AI response actually mention Middlesbrough at all and if you ask further direct prompts to AI it says it can't find any links between them. |  | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:36 - May 22 with 1597 views | benalisbroom |
Matt: Have you contacted the Echo or Adam Blackmore about this? | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:37 - May 22 with 1589 views | saint22 |
A Boro supporting (ex) friend of mine said that Gibson is still fuming about how Southampton pushed for their relegation in 1997 (3 point deduction put them
down saving you and Coventry)
It would appear Steve Gibson holds a grudge so no wonder he stacked the court | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:49 - May 22 with 1570 views | yateleysaint |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:36 - May 22 by benalisbroom |
Matt: Have you contacted the Echo or Adam Blackmore about this? |
I think Private Eye would have a field day with it too. | |
| You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into. |
| |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:49 - May 22 with 1569 views | jopreston |
Blimey, talk about making it obviously you are a skate. |  | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:54 - May 22 with 1557 views | MattFinish |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 07:36 - May 22 by benalisbroom |
Matt: Have you contacted the Echo or Adam Blackmore about this? |
Dorselan has | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 08:43 - May 22 with 1499 views | MattFinish |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 00:55 - May 22 by DorsetIan |
Appendix 2
Any member of an Applicable Tribunal (Tribunal Member) may be challenged if circumstances exist
that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. A party who intends to
challenge any Tribunal Member shall send to the other party or parties a notice of challenge setting out
the reasons for its challenge within 7 days after notification of the appointment of the challenged
Tribunal Member, or within 7 days from the date when the party making the challenge is informed of
any facts and circumstances which may give rise to such a challenge (if such date is subsequent to the
receipt of notification of appointment). A copy of the notice shall be sent simultaneously to the Tribunal
Member who is challenged and the other members of the Applicable Tribunal and the League. The
notification shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the challenge |
That’s good stuff Dorsetlan 👍 | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 08:45 - May 22 with 1496 views | MattFinish |
Perhaps we should all lobby our MP?
Pompey did that and had two huge HMRC debts wiped by Penny Mordant getting involved on their behalf | | | |
| HOW ABOUT THIS !!!!!!! on 08:47 - May 22 with 1482 views | jopreston |
Has anyone else seen the article by someone connected to the PL about Burnley and Saints and wanting to ban us from promotion. Why? Because they believe both clubs and yo-yo clubs deliberately to make money. They believe both clubs make no genuine effort to sign PL players and stay up and just pocket the extra monies each time. Perhaps this is in some way linked to that. The perfect way for the PL to keep us out. [Post edited 22 May 8:47]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.