It wasn't considered because they didn't have time. They had to pass the case to the AC by 15th May, to avoud it being timed-out, as it would have been over 5 years ago and therefore outside their own limitation on reopening a case. They'd only opened the case a couple of months before.
But there's a doubt as to whether that date was even the valid one, as it totally depends on when the breach actually occurred. If CAS decides it was before 16th May 2014 then they'll have been out of time and i assume the case will be dropped.
Wow!Colin, I recently re visited the leaked/hacked emails on Der Spiegels website and the email laid out in copy defo says ADUG provided the additional funds. Do you suppose that's a mistake by Pearce, or an instance indicating those emails are fabricated either in part or otherwise?
Watching this with interest, as for me winning this case against the corrupt governing body will be a greater victory for our club (and the wider football community - even if they don’t see it yet) than any champions league trophy win.
Simply put - this is the biggest thing for city since the playoff final.
It wasn't considered because they didn't have time. They had to pass the case to the AC by 15th May, to avoud it being timed-out, as it would have been over 5 years ago and therefore outside their own limitation on reopening a case. They'd only opened the case a couple of months before.
But there's a doubt as to whether that date was even the valid one, as it totally depends on when the breach actually occurred. If CAS decides it was before 16th May 2014 then they'll have been out of time and i assume the case will be dropped.
Queue the video of Khaldoon walking with around 20 suites up guys
What is this supposed to mean?
Personally I don't think he's been that suspect. I checked his post history and he seems a blue. It's natural to post a lot more on such a critical topic. He's putting an alternative view. We are all hoping the ban is completely overturned, but on a forum we should be able to discuss the subject, and become as well informed as possible, as long as there is no wumming. Wums are quite rightly kicked.His opinion is not necessarily what makes him suspect — we mods aren’t from RAWK.
Remember the club know what UEFA have.
They know what was in the leaked emails, they know what information is available or calculable from the documents they've submitted to UEFA and whats publicly available about the sponsor companies.
I don't think there's any chance UEFA walk in with a document and City say "shit we didn't know they had that"
What is this supposed to mean?
People do realise that all of these stories are just setting up the narrative that we beat poor little underdog UEFA by simply throwing money at the problem and finding a legal loophole which meant we escaped the punishment we deserved?
Win this and clubs will be thanking us in years to come.
They might not see it now and are probably loving what is going on but it doesnt alter the fact that a win for us allows any club to challenge the established clubs in the future whilst a loss means most can consign themselves to just making up the numbers forever.
Thanks pilgrim. Now get off your horse and drink your milk. :)Exactly right. UEFA have made a decision on the basis of the information available. That decision is currently legally-privileged but it will explain why City have been found guilty and the basis upon which the decision has been made. The progression of the case to CAS is not about UEFA steaming in with previously unchallenged evidence to prove our guilt. It is about whether or not UEFA made a just and proportionate decision which respected due process on the information available at the time. City's case, I believe, can be fought on an evidentiary foundation because procedure and evidence are inextricably linked in this case. UEFA's apparent inability to follow due process in the IC, by substantially reviewing our 200-page defence, led to a failure to consider the evidence properly. City disengaged with the process as soon as it became obvious that UEFA chose expediency over due consideration. When taking this alongside the leaks to the NYT about our recommended punishment at the IC stage, it is right that we did not engage further. The essence of the investigation takes place at the IC stage and the judgement at the AC stage, predicated on the IC's findings. There is nothing UEFA can throw at us now that we haven't yet been able to cross-examine.
Yep. This huge flood of negative press is designed to overshadow the forthcoming not guilty verdict.
I like it,a rare moment when blues are together and not tearing strips off each other,i am guilty of that,i'm gonna stop it (hopefully) i kinda like the backs to the wall stuff,it's like the old daysim proper bored of this shit already
I just think a lot of people on here have their heads in the clouds if they think it will be completely overturned. The evidence is there and UEFA have acted on it, doesn't matter how it was obtained or how unfair the process was. The best that City can hope for is a reduction in that sanction.
I think, that uefa didn't follow proper procedure, by allowing a leak regarding an active investigation.
Believing to be true isn't enough.Would that automatically get us off the hook though? even if there were leaks and UEFA didn't follow the correct procedure that doesn't mean to say we are in the clear does it? UEFA did say in a statement that they made that they used information reported in the media as part of their investigation (I'm guessing a reference to the football leaks) which they believe to be true.