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

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Got those - I mean the screen grabs of the actual mails. I have these but can't locate the rest https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278

I can occasionally live in denial, but the sight of those emails always has me getting out the worry beads, particularly as City have never denied their authenticity, just their context. If the nub of the matter is Sheikh Mansour funding ADTA, Etihad etc, to in turn then fund us, and the fully audited accounts constitute the ‘irrefutable’ evidence, would we have submitted just MCFC’s accounts to CAS, or ADUG’s accounts as well? Surely only the latter would be meaningful in addressing the self-funding issue?

 

[Proy]

I doubt there is a such thing as "irrefutable evidence" here - we are trying to prove a negative. The fact that UEFA has already refuted our evidence tells you it can be refuted. There is "strong" evidence, "powerful" evidence, "compelling" evidence, "documentary" evidence. Irrefutable has always been a silly word to use.

The reason it is dangerous to put up witnesses like Pearce is because barristers are good and Pearce could easily have been made to say something that gave the wrong impression. His emails demonstrate he is not the most disciplined or careful person. In addition, it is a very difficult risk to control. Given the stakes you don't want risk.

Why are you judging the character of Simon Pearce on the basis of a few emails?

Also, why are you assuming he may have been coached into saying something supportive of Manchester City?

You are now moving the thread theme away from ‘irrefutable evidence’ to ‘ending up with Simon Pearce being coached into saying something’ as said evidence, which in your eyes, means it’s no longer irrefutable.

It’s almost as though you don’t believe we have irrefutable evidence. Or, as you don’t like the terminology, solid evidence or whichever word you wish to insert...........

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

We've gone from "irrefutable" (presumably documentary) proof to relying on Simon Pearce being coached to give crucial evidence. I do hope you are wrong.

Only here has it gone from irrefutable to Simon Pearce, who was briefly mentioned in one post as he may of appeared at CAS, City have never moved from irrefutable, so it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks as you and others have pointed out we collectively know pretty much fùck all.

So no need to hope someone is wrong as the premise it is built on is not even hearsay at best.

 

[projectriver]

Only here has it gone from irrefutable to Simon Pearce, who was briefly mentioned in one post as he may of appeared at CAS, City have never moved from irrefutable, so it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks as you and others have pointed out we collectively know pretty much fùck all.

So no need to hope someone is wrong as the premise it is built on is not even hearsay at best.

It meant "We've" as in "You've".

As for the last sentence, that's wrong IMO. Any case relying on a crucial witness is inherently uncertain. So I hope that it is wrong that Pearce was a crucial witness - it would undermine my confidence. We win this by the documents trumping UEFA's documents and not by our witnesses saying emails were misunderstood or mischaracterised.

Again, another "what's the point in discussing it as we know fuck all". That is the nature of a forum and this thread. Partake or don't.

 

[projectriver]

Why are you judging the character of Simon Pearce on the basis of a few emails?

Also, why are you assuming he may have been coached into saying something supportive of Manchester City?

You are now moving the thread theme away from ‘irrefutable evidence’ to ‘ending up with Simon Pearce being coached into saying something’ as said evidence, which in your eyes, means it’s no longer irrefutable.

It’s almost as though you don’t believe we have irrefutable evidence. Or, as you don’t like the terminology, solid evidence or whichever word you wish to insert...........

I don't believe we have "irrefutable" evidence. Almost all evidence is refutable. Civil cases are decided by weighing both parties' evidence.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

City could well be in real difficulties if they allowed the appeal to revolve around what Pearce did NOT mean in those emails and our legal team is far too capable and experienced to have allowed it to happen. Sorriano set out right from the beginning that our appeal was based entirely on our being innocent of any claims that we had breached FFP in any way and that UEFA's assertions that we (presumably) inflated sponsorship deals are "not true, simply not true". Khaldoon claimed that we had presented a folder of evidence to the two chambers, which he claimed was "irrefutable". We can argue about his terminology but his meaning is clear. His view is that it is City's evidence - not any argument about who said what and meant what in which email - that would decide the case. My belief is that this evidence is the club's accounts, duly audited and supported by a statement from the auditors, backed up also by a statement from Etihad, and with receipts etc to show that they ars an accurate record. City are not trying to prove a negative, not trying to prove that we didn't breach FFP but are putting the onus on UEFA to show any evidence of real weight (and the emails are not) that we did. I cannot see how UEFA can.

 

[projectriver]

City could well be in real difficulties if they allowed the appeal to revolve around what Pearce did NOT mean in those emails and our legal team is far too capable and experienced to have allowed it to happen. Sorriano set out right from the beginning that our appeal was based entirely on our being innocent of any claims that we had breached FFP in any way and that UEFA's assertions that we (presumably) inflated sponsorship deals are "not true, simply not true". Khaldoon claimed that we had presented a folder of evidence to the two chambers, which he claimed was "irrefutable". We can argue about his terminology but his meaning is clear. His view is that it is City's evidence - not any argument about who said what and meant what in which email - that would decide the case. My belief is that this evidence is the club's accounts, duly audited and supported by a statement from the auditors, backed up also by a statement from Etihad, and with receipts etc to show that they ars an accurate record. City are not trying to prove a negative, not trying to prove that we didn't breach FFP but are putting the onus on UEFA to show any evidence of real weight (and the emails are not) that we did. I cannot see how UEFA can.

Agree generally but not wholly convinced it is as simple as the evidential burden being all UEFA's in this given it is an appeal, nor that the emails have no weight. They have some weight as the inference is clear regardless of context.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

It meant "We've" as in "You've".

As for the last sentence, that's wrong IMO. Any case relying on a crucial witness is inherently uncertain. So I hope that it is wrong that Pearce was a crucial witness - it would undermine my confidence. We win this by the documents trumping UEFA's documents and not by our witnesses saying emails were misunderstood or mischaracterised.

Again, another "what's the point in discussing it as we know fuck all". That is the nature of a forum and this thread. Partake or don't.

Again, one poster mentioned he may of appeared, what this is based on is anyone’s guess, you seem to have taken it as fact.

You can dislike the word irrefutable as much as you wish, but that word would not of been used by Khaldoon lightly, so I will take his actual known words rather than the hearsay at best word of one poster which seems to have been taken as fact, with you using statements like ‘I hope you are wrong’.

There is zero reliable confirmation Pearce was anywhere near CAS so the whole premise of your post is hearsay at best.

You obviously have much greater knowledge of legal proceedings than 99% of people on here including me, but referring to Pearce as a witness never mind crucial witness is bollòcks as it has no basis to anything we actually know at this time.

Obviously the 1% who do have more legal knowledge is @gordondaviesmoustache ;)

 

[projectriver]

Again, one poster mentioned he may of appeared, what this is based on is anyone’s guess, you seem to have taken it as fact.

You can dislike the word irrefutable as much as you wish, but that word would not of been used by Khaldoon lightly, so I will take his actual known words rather than the hearsay at best word of one poster which seems to have been taken as fact, with you using statements like ‘I hope you are wrong’.

There is zero reliable confirmation Pearce was anywhere near CAS so the whole premise of your post is hearsay at best.

You obviously have much greater knowledge of legal proceedings than 99% of people on here including me, but referring to Pearce as a witness never mind crucial witness is bollòcks as it has no basis to anything we actually know at this time.

Obviously the 1% who do have more legal knowledge is @gordondaviesmoustache ;)

This is just going down a rabbit hole. Someone (with known sources) said Pearce was a witness, someone else said perhaps he was a crucial witness. I simply said I hope they are wrong because it would sway my confidence if our case was dependent on witnesses as opposed to documents.

So I have no idea what you are actually saying. If it's simply you believe City's evidence is "irrefutable" because that is what City say, great. That isn't my view.

 

[bluemanchester]

Without wanting to seem picky, but can anyone remember if there was a full stop after the "we can do what we want" e mail. It will be interesting if somebody can find and post them. They could just continue to say, within the terms of the contract. Anyway, since last Thursday I have avoided TV and papers and watched 4 series of Downton Abbey, Most of Faulty Towers and most of Rising Damp now looking for repeats of Judge Rinder to help me with the last few days of this thread