Which is probably why we settled. While the Liverpool employees responsible have almost certainly committed criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act, City would also have been open to civil enforcement from the ICO under the latter legislation for failing to properly secure personal dataThe story was that they obtained and used the log in credentials of a former colleague at City. Their own had been cancelled. Still woeful cyber security though.
To be honest I was quite surprised when CAS said the full judgement would be up "in a few days". That seemed unusually quick by the standards of these things, as it usually take weeks. On Monday evening Omar Berrada said it was expected Wednesday so I can only assume there's some last-minute wrangling over some details.For those few posters who seem the most knowledgeable on this subject @projectriver @Prestwich_Blue - what would the main reasoning for the final judgment still not being released be?
To go from a couple of days to well over a week, will there be any significance or is it likely nothing more than sitting the I’s and crossing the T’s ?
Not sure I totally agree with that, mate. Pretty sure an offence of simple fraud has been made out too, based on the narrative as I understand it.Which is probably why we settled. While the Liverpool employees responsible have almost certainly committed criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act, City would also have been open to civil enforcement from the ICO under the latter legislation for failing to properly secure personal data
I know a bit about DPA1998/2018 but, of course, I bow to m’learned friend’s significantly greater knowledge and experience of what would constitute someone being considered a fraud ;)Not sure I totally agree with that, mate. Pretty sure an offence of simple fraud has been made out too, based on the narrative as I understand it.
Touché!I know a bit about DPA1998/2018 but, of course, I bow to m’learned friend’s significantly greater knowledge and experience of what would constitute someone being considered a fraud ;)
ArfTouché!
The whiff of racism is never far from the attacks on City.
It was the josimarfootball link I was thinking of, cheers.You have to piece several reports together. There is no overarching run down on all his activities. No doubt this will emerge during and after the trial. He has admitted being the source of the Luanda leaks. Here are the documents he had.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/luanda-leaks/read-the-luanda-leaks-documents/
Edit PS. You are right about the Portugese judiciary.
PPS Here is part of it.
http://josimarfootball.com/the-portuguese-case-against-rui-pinto/
Realistically can only be one of the parties protesting about something in there. Usually in courts, only typo changes are permitted but in arbitration there are different rules for each case/arbitrator. From what I hear City are not the party causing the delay but that may be rumour. UEFA obviously keen not to be portrayed as fools or worse.For those few posters who seem the most knowledgeable on this subject @projectriver @Prestwich_Blue - what would the main reasoning for the final judgment still not being released be?
To go from a couple of days to well over a week, will there be any significance or is it likely nothing more than sitting the I’s and crossing the T’s ?
UEFA surely don't have any powers to change the content of the report in all but a very cosmetic way surely?Realistically can only be one of the parties protesting about something in there. Usually in courts, only typo changes are permitted but in arbitration there are different rules for each case/arbitrator. From what I hear City are not the party causing the delay but that may be rumour. UEFA obviously keen not to be portrayed as fools or worse.
UEFA surely don't have any powers to change the content of the report in all but a very cosmetic way surely?
Realistically can only be one of the parties protesting about something in there. Usually in courts, only typo changes are permitted but in arbitration there are different rules for each case/arbitrator. From what I hear City are not the party causing the delay but that may be rumour. UEFA obviously keen not to be portrayed as fools or worse.
This is why I think City should announce they are happy for it to be released - a "it's not us guv." at very least we should be briefingI feel like City should be able to outmanouvre UEFA pretty easily here...they have a burden of transparency and a lot of people are already pretty pissed off with the ruling being perceived as UEFA cocking up.
If they cut stuff out and then City complained about pointedly it in their statement, there would be huge pressure on UEFA to allow the release of an unredacted/ununabridged version.
I feel like City should be able to outmanouvre UEFA pretty easily here...they have a burden of transparency and a lot of people are already pretty pissed off with the ruling being perceived as UEFA cocking up.
If they cut stuff out and then City complained about pointedly it in their statement, there would be huge pressure on UEFA to allow the release of an unredacted/ununabridged version.
Golf, strangling animals and masturbation. Oh! He's let himself down on the hobbies; golf really isn't very popular round here.I want one of your business cards. If it lists all your activities it must be a work of art :-)
"Hello is that Liverpool F.C.?"I think it would be quite fitting if someone was able to hack our systems and then release the full report.
Cheesy lolI think it would be quite fitting if someone was able to hack our systems and then release the full report.