Bradford City: Mark Stewart decision put back again

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Mark Stewart was originally signed in the summer of 2011 Mark Stewart was originally signed in the summer of 2011

City’s wait to hear the Mark Stewart verdict goes on after the deadline was extended once again.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport have adjourned the date of their decision for a second time. Due to be announced tomorrow, it has now been put back three weeks to Friday, February 28.

City are appealing FIFA’s decision to award Falkirk £217,000 (250,000 euros) in training compensation for the striker, who was signed in the summer of 2011.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:01pm Thu 6 Feb 14

doneBD4 says...

But why has it been put back for a second time?
But why has it been put back for a second time? doneBD4
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Farsley Bantam says...

doneBD4 wrote:
But why has it been put back for a second time?
This is FIFA we are taking about here so common sense does no apply. They live in a seperate universe to the rest of us so will have absolutely no idea what impact a potential £200k penalty could have on our future prospects. They've probably delayed the hearing because they have bribes to collect from Russia and Qatar.
[quote][p][bold]doneBD4[/bold] wrote: But why has it been put back for a second time?[/p][/quote]This is FIFA we are taking about here so common sense does no apply. They live in a seperate universe to the rest of us so will have absolutely no idea what impact a potential £200k penalty could have on our future prospects. They've probably delayed the hearing because they have bribes to collect from Russia and Qatar. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 12

5:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

audal says...

City appealing does not auger well re. final outcome. I predict £75.000 fine with certain conditions within the market.
City appealing does not auger well re. final outcome. I predict £75.000 fine with certain conditions within the market. audal
  • Score: 1

5:32pm Thu 6 Feb 14

GenieBantam says...

What a complete joke. Should never have got to this stage in the first place.
What a complete joke. Should never have got to this stage in the first place. GenieBantam
  • Score: 2

5:34pm Thu 6 Feb 14

GenieBantam says...

What a complete joke. Should never have got to this stage in the first place.

Id be more worried about FIFA bribing the Court of Arb!!!
What a complete joke. Should never have got to this stage in the first place. Id be more worried about FIFA bribing the Court of Arb!!! GenieBantam
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Storck says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
doneBD4 wrote:
But why has it been put back for a second time?
This is FIFA we are taking about here so common sense does no apply. They live in a seperate universe to the rest of us so will have absolutely no idea what impact a potential £200k penalty could have on our future prospects. They've probably delayed the hearing because they have bribes to collect from Russia and Qatar.
It isn't FIFA that have put it off it is CAS, they are independent of FIFA.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]doneBD4[/bold] wrote: But why has it been put back for a second time?[/p][/quote]This is FIFA we are taking about here so common sense does no apply. They live in a seperate universe to the rest of us so will have absolutely no idea what impact a potential £200k penalty could have on our future prospects. They've probably delayed the hearing because they have bribes to collect from Russia and Qatar.[/p][/quote]It isn't FIFA that have put it off it is CAS, they are independent of FIFA. Storck
  • Score: 2

8:23pm Thu 6 Feb 14

seasonticketholder says...

What is most annoying is treating us in such an arrogant manner. They should explain WHY they have decided to put it back. The hearing has finished over three months ago, when they give their judgement.
What is most annoying is treating us in such an arrogant manner. They should explain WHY they have decided to put it back. The hearing has finished over three months ago, when they give their judgement. seasonticketholder
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Thu 6 Feb 14

albioff says...

City have likely won their case but they will likely be looking for ways to dodge out of it and to sweep it under the carpet. In otherwords city will be shafted.
City have likely won their case but they will likely be looking for ways to dodge out of it and to sweep it under the carpet. In otherwords city will be shafted. albioff
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

CGUM79 says...

This would be a total travesty if any sort of fine would be imposed yet alone the one initially sanctioned. Look back to when Andy Webster left Hearts, not exactly the same but another player who moved over the border.
This would be a total travesty if any sort of fine would be imposed yet alone the one initially sanctioned. Look back to when Andy Webster left Hearts, not exactly the same but another player who moved over the border. CGUM79
  • Score: 1

8:45am Fri 7 Feb 14

minkiebantam says...

What a joke this is!! This is dragging on longer than the NOTW Hacking trial!!?
As said above, it should have never even got to this point.
Just another example of the people who are running the game we all love, Having no clue what so ever!!
CTID!
What a joke this is!! This is dragging on longer than the NOTW Hacking trial!!? As said above, it should have never even got to this point. Just another example of the people who are running the game we all love, Having no clue what so ever!! CTID! minkiebantam
  • Score: -1

9:35am Fri 7 Feb 14

Michael Clayton says...

So many legal eagles!

No-one who has left a comment appears to know the reason(s) for the delay.

The CAS are not under any obligation to explain the reasons for the delay in their role as arbitrators.

Why should they be seen as arrogant? They are simply undertaking due process and are undertaking an independent review of the case.

The football club is not a special case.
So many legal eagles! No-one who has left a comment appears to know the reason(s) for the delay. The CAS are not under any obligation to explain the reasons for the delay in their role as arbitrators. Why should they be seen as arrogant? They are simply undertaking due process and are undertaking an independent review of the case. The football club is not a special case. Michael Clayton
  • Score: -1

10:29am Fri 7 Feb 14

minkiebantam says...

Michael Clayton wrote:
So many legal eagles! No-one who has left a comment appears to know the reason(s) for the delay. The CAS are not under any obligation to explain the reasons for the delay in their role as arbitrators. Why should they be seen as arrogant? They are simply undertaking due process and are undertaking an independent review of the case. The football club is not a special case.
So enlighten us then Mr Clayton?? Why do they set dates for this to be resolved and then delay it time after time?
If the "due Process" they are undrtaking is a long technical process, why not just give themselves enough time to do it in the 1st place, instead of setting a date, then delaying it!!? It does'nt make them look good, hence the disgruntled back lash from us, THE FANS.
CTID!
[quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: So many legal eagles! No-one who has left a comment appears to know the reason(s) for the delay. The CAS are not under any obligation to explain the reasons for the delay in their role as arbitrators. Why should they be seen as arrogant? They are simply undertaking due process and are undertaking an independent review of the case. The football club is not a special case.[/p][/quote]So enlighten us then Mr Clayton?? Why do they set dates for this to be resolved and then delay it time after time? If the "due Process" they are undrtaking is a long technical process, why not just give themselves enough time to do it in the 1st place, instead of setting a date, then delaying it!!? It does'nt make them look good, hence the disgruntled back lash from us, THE FANS. CTID! minkiebantam
  • Score: 0

10:46am Fri 7 Feb 14

Michael Clayton says...

minkiebantam wrote:
Michael Clayton wrote: So many legal eagles! No-one who has left a comment appears to know the reason(s) for the delay. The CAS are not under any obligation to explain the reasons for the delay in their role as arbitrators. Why should they be seen as arrogant? They are simply undertaking due process and are undertaking an independent review of the case. The football club is not a special case.
So enlighten us then Mr Clayton?? Why do they set dates for this to be resolved and then delay it time after time? If the "due Process" they are undrtaking is a long technical process, why not just give themselves enough time to do it in the 1st place, instead of setting a date, then delaying it!!? It does'nt make them look good, hence the disgruntled back lash from us, THE FANS. CTID!
"So enlighten us then Mr Clayton?? Why do they set dates for this to be resolved and then delay it time after time?"

If you knew that yourself then you would not be asking me.

My guess is that they have adjourned in order to look at any legal precedents and/or case law. Emphasis on the word 'guess'. As stated, no one making a comment (me included) knows. That is my point.

Also, it is of no consequence whether the CAS look good, bad or indifferent. They are not answerable to us.
[quote][p][bold]minkiebantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Clayton[/bold] wrote: So many legal eagles! No-one who has left a comment appears to know the reason(s) for the delay. The CAS are not under any obligation to explain the reasons for the delay in their role as arbitrators. Why should they be seen as arrogant? They are simply undertaking due process and are undertaking an independent review of the case. The football club is not a special case.[/p][/quote]So enlighten us then Mr Clayton?? Why do they set dates for this to be resolved and then delay it time after time? If the "due Process" they are undrtaking is a long technical process, why not just give themselves enough time to do it in the 1st place, instead of setting a date, then delaying it!!? It does'nt make them look good, hence the disgruntled back lash from us, THE FANS. CTID![/p][/quote]"So enlighten us then Mr Clayton?? Why do they set dates for this to be resolved and then delay it time after time?" If you knew that yourself then you would not be asking me. My guess is that they have adjourned in order to look at any legal precedents and/or case law. Emphasis on the word 'guess'. As stated, no one making a comment (me included) knows. That is my point. Also, it is of no consequence whether the CAS look good, bad or indifferent. They are not answerable to us. Michael Clayton
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Scargutt2 says...

Are they putting the decision back in the hope that sooner or later Stewart will actually score a goal somewhere and then Falkirk can claim he is actually a professional striker without being laughed at?

Just one more goal could double his value.
Are they putting the decision back in the hope that sooner or later Stewart will actually score a goal somewhere and then Falkirk can claim he is actually a professional striker without being laughed at? Just one more goal could double his value. Scargutt2
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree