UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned in a previous post (there’s just so many pages!!) but as the case was scheduled for 3 days, is it likely to have lasted this long if it was argued, and accepted, on the first day that a line was drawn under the agreement and couldn’t be opened again or would both sides have been allowed to present the rest of their cases during the time left.
 
projectriver said:
Very hard to argue with your logic.

But if that was the case, I'd be very concerned about the strength of our case because City spoke of "irrefutable" evidence. As I said above that's a poor choice of word, but it must mean documentary evidence that they consider very strong. You would never call a witnesses evidence "irrefutable".

So why then, would the evidence of Pearce be so "crucial". City had suggested it was "open and shut" (the inference of "irrefutable") but in this version we need Pearce to explain away his emails.
Click to expand...

Could Pearce have been testifying about the process of the IC and AC?

I assume that as our most senior lawyer he would have been the one engaging with the chambers and submitting City's side to them.

As such if theres going to be an argument over UEFA ignoring things or city not cooperating (supposedly the reason for the extended ban) he would be able to speak to that.
 
projectriver said:
Very hard to argue with your logic.

But if that was the case, I'd be very concerned about the strength of our case because City spoke of "irrefutable" evidence. As I said above that's a poor choice of word, but it must mean documentary evidence that they consider very strong. You would never call a witnesses evidence "irrefutable".

So why then, would the evidence of Pearce be so "crucial". City had suggested it was "open and shut" (the inference of "irrefutable") but in this version we need Pearce to explain away his emails.
Click to expand...

If Pearce was a witness, and we don't know if he was. How much work would the barrister's have done with him beforehand? Rehearsing, Q&A's etc, or have I been watching to many courtroom drama's.
 
Delboy352 said:
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned in a previous post (there’s just so many pages!!) but as the case was scheduled for 3 days, is it likely to have lasted this long if it was argued, and accepted, on the first day that a line was drawn under the agreement and couldn’t be opened again or would both sides have been allowed to present the rest of their cases during the time left.
Click to expand...
The whole case would have been presented.
 
Murph said:
If Pearce was a witness, and we don't know if he was. How much work would the barrister's have done with him beforehand? Rehearsing, Q&A's etc, or have I been watching to many courtroom drama's.
Click to expand...

In the English courts you can't coach the witness. You can have generic training/"familiarisation". But that is the point - if witness needs coaching, it highlights the risk him or her has to be careful what they say.
 
domalino said:
Could Pearce have been testifying about the process of the IC and AC?

I assume that as our most senior lawyer he would have been the one engaging with the chambers and submitting City's side to them.

As such if theres going to be an argument over UEFA ignoring things or city not cooperating (supposedly the reason for the extended ban) he would be able to speak to that.
Click to expand...

No he wouldn't have been testifying re the IC and AC but you have confused him for Simon Cliff. Pearce is not a lawyer.

So no this is not why he'd have been giving evidence, if he did.
 
UEFA in this case has been collecting the so called evidence. Then it has also decided, that it will be both judge and jury all in one. This would be like the police deciding to charge a Mr Smith with murder, and then saying that because of all the evidenced that we have got there is no point in having a trial. Why not just send this MR Smith straight to jail and save all the tax payers money on a expensive trial. It just will not be allowed to happen.

UEFA cannot be allowed to get away with it. CAS have got to give us a clean bill of health so to speak. They have got to say that the charges brought by UEFA are totally fabricated to get back at Manchester City (for all the money that they have, and that is why they have brought these charges against us)and that UEFA cannot go back and try Manchester City again on any charges that CAS have cleared us off.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
Why would it be a dangerous thing to do? If we are totally innocent like we insist, then surely it is comnon sense to put Pearce up. We have maintained the hacked emails were taken out of context. Surely if we are innocent, then put the man firward who written the emails and let him explain the context surrounding then.
The only reason I can think of not putting Pearce forward is if we are not being totally honest. If we have irrefutable evidence then surely that means we have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear........yeah right.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Only a couple of emails but he made some very unprofessional comments. Did he make the joke about the death of the UEFA official? Either way for someone operating at a very senior level he showed a total lack of awareness of cyber security. Emails are not (and have never been) a secure method of communication for sensitive information. His lack of professionalism has cost our club and our organisation millions of pounds so far and I have zero trust in him.
Click to expand...
Simon Cliff made the alleged 'joke'. Without having to dig them out again what was so unprofessional about Simon Pearce s emails?

We still don't know how these emails came about being leaked BTW. If you want to be frightened about communicating via any electronic means then read the following:-

https://investigativejournal.org/qatars-hack-of-our-democracies/
 
Centurions said:
Simon Cliff made the alleged 'joke'. Without having to dig them out again what was so unprofessional about Simon Pearce s emails?
We still don't know how these emails came about being leaked BTW. If you want to be frightened about communicating via any electronic means then read the following:-
https://investigativejournal.org/qatars-hack-of-our-democracies/
Click to expand...
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html "The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want.""
The source of the leak now won't save us - not relevant to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top