Read again and a few more bits worth highlighting.
UEFA reopened the case into us following leaks from Der Spiegel, Reuters and Mediapart. That was the basis for them feeling able to do so desire our previous agreement and the time limit on reopening.
CAS feel that our allegation that UEFA themselves, or an associated and interested party with conflicting interests to those of Manchester City, facilitated these leaks, to enable them to reopen their case, is not without merit.
They also state that the Chief Investigator's comments on dismissing our concerns when raised out of hand were puzzling. That is because he or his organisation were accused of leaking information (the articles states specifically from a UEFA source) and thus the whole process was broken, and he didn't blink an eye, or start an internal investigation or even refer to any processes to prevent such circumstances. He was confident enough to just dismiss it out of hand, without explaining or asking questions of his own organisation, to what is actually a pretty serious allegation.
The biggest issue for us, and the CAS document states this specifically, is that we have not presented sufficient evidence that the leaks came from UEFA. Indeed, we contradicted ourselves by saying that the leaks could influence the decision, yet the decision was already known and leaked.
So, what happens next?
UEFA claim they have not yet made a decision. In fact, they claim they have not refused to pause the investigation as city requested. So there could be a pause whilst the leaks are investigated.
City's claim for damages and a full investigation into UEFA and the leaks is inadmissible by CAS. But that is because CAS is the wrong forum in which to do this. City could go to an Ordinary Arbitration Proceeding to force this action.
UEFA could come to a decision and pass judgement, any ban or fine likely to be challenged by city, so again back to CAS. But this time CAS would have to rule one way or the other as the AC would have competed it's role.
UEFA could drop the investigation due to lack of evidence, or impose a suspended ban or fine. They could therefore claim any leak was therefore evidently false, and discourage an independent investigation or referral to the OAP. But they'd have egg on their face given that their own investigation found enough to ask the AC to sit and rule on a suitable punishment for City.
Edit.. oh, and one last option. City ask for a settlement and take a reduced punishment. Hardly worth mentioning.
