“We have a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence to prove our innocence.” December 2018: The PL requested information and documents from City. City failed to comply. September 2019: City challenged the independence and impartiality of the disciplinary process. September 2019: The PL proposed an alternative procedure for appointing a new Commission. City rejected the offer. October 2019: The Premier League commenced arbitration under Rule X, seeking a ruling that City had to provide the requested information and documents. City then challenged the PL’s right to bring the arbitration at all, saying that it lacked the power to do so and that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction. City also challenged the arbitrators’ impartiality. City subsequently took the dispute to the High Court under the Arbitration Act 1996, seeking to set aside the award and remove the arbitrators. March 2021: Mrs Justice Moulder rejected City’s challenges. On jurisdiction, the judge ruled that Rule X.2 meant that all disputes could be submitted to arbitration and that the PL was entitled to bring proceedings under those rules. On impartiality, the judge found no real possibility that the arbitrators were biased. She also examined City’s participation in the PL’s rules and appointment system. City had been signed up to the rules since August 2001 and could participate as a shareholder in amendments and annual reapproval, including matters relating to appointments. The judge described City’s acceptance of the disciplinary and dispute resolution process as a “voluntary, informed and unequivocal election”. She refues City permission to appeal the High Court judgment for three reasons. On jurisdiction, she considered that the PLs right to bring the arbitration had been decided by applying the established principles of contractual interpretation in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd. She saw no compelling reason for an appeal, considering that the implications for other clubs were limited because PL members collectively had the power to change the rules. On bias and impartiality, she concluded that City’s challenge had been determined by applying the established legal test approved by the Supreme Court in Halliburton v Chubb. It is also worth noting that City challenged the PL’s very ability to bring the charges against them at the Independent Commission hearings. So, if City really had a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" proving their innocence, why were all their challenges centred on the process, the jurisdiction of the arbitrators and their impartiality? And why so many challenges? Or to shorten it down to 3 words City are fucked. Sham.