CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[I'm With Stupid]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...pions-League-ban-court-case-against-UEFA.html

look at the fucking state of this

I love the line "More to follow."

What, you mean after you actually read the fucking report, you bell end?

Gotta get the clicks early. Never mind the actual facts.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Do we know why?

I was wondering why Simon Jordan’s dad didn’t withdraw

 

[Mike Cledford]

Made me chuckle

Yes l read that as:
'It's much too difficult for an ex fanzine contributor like me to understand but these three hate City and l desperately hope they can make up more lies up so l can agree fully'

Utter wanker.

 

[Barcon]

how city got “let off”

and how we “blatantly broke the principles of FFP”

oh and how we had 9 lawyers at the hearing as if that matters

Thanks mate. Fuck them. They sound like imbeciles.

 

[Mike Cledford]

Yes. When I think impartiality Tariq Panja and Rob Harris immediately come to mind.

Or not

 

[kaz7]

Props to soriano for giving that interview and being adamant we did nothing wrong,that was putting his reputation on the line,same with pep and khaldoon

 

[citizen_maine]

I'm gonna chance it and be lazy, just for now but if/when the likes of @Prestwich_Blue have read it and given their trusted summary can someone quote it and tag me?

I'm going to be equally lazy and say 'No'

 

[M12Blue]

@Prestwich_Blue
A majority of the (three person) panel felt that we had acted legitimately. I assume that means we won on a majority 2-1 decision. If UEFA's case was so flimsy, how can one panel member have supported them? I'd be surprised if the media didn't make something of this.

3-0 is a majority is how I see it

 

[Norbiton]

@Prestwich_Blue
A majority of the (three person) panel felt that we had acted legitimately. I assume that means we won on a majority 2-1 decision. If UEFA's case was so flimsy, how can one panel member have supported them? I'd be surprised if the media didn't make something of this.

That looks like it was on the question of whether the Etihad sponsorship was fair value and a related party or not that one of the panel dissented

 

[BringBackSwales]

@Prestwich_Blue
A majority of the (three person) panel felt that we had acted legitimately. I assume that means we won on a majority 2-1 decision. If UEFA's case was so flimsy, how can one panel member have supported them? I'd be surprised if the media didn't make something of this.

Cos they elected one of the 3 on the panel, as did we

 

[pudge]

I'm going to be equally lazy and say 'No'

Furry muff

 

[The perfect fumble]

Has anyone got in touch with Simon Jordan, via Talksport yet?

I'm waiting on Darren Gough's definitive take.

 

[M12Blue]

I love the line "More to follow."

What, you mean after you actually read the fucking report, you bell end?

Gotta get the clicks early. Never mind the actual facts.

Stir up anti city sentiment before they even read it and more importantly understood it

 

[@BluePhil8]

City actually gave CAS all the emails except 1 and an attachment from another.

They refused to give them to UEFA...

UEFA had no legitimacy to investigate this matter.

 

[kaz7]

@Prestwich_Blue
A majority of the (three person) panel felt that we had acted legitimately. I assume that means we won on a majority 2-1 decision. If UEFA's case was so flimsy, how can one panel member have supported them? I'd be surprised if the media didn't make something of this.

Because one was a UEFA chosen one,we had our choice then there was a totally independent one

 

[BringBackSwales]

they withdrew too late.

No that was Simon Jordan’s dad

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Yes l read that as:
'It's much too difficult for an ex fanzine contributor like me to understand but these three hate City and l desperately hope they can make up more lies up so l can agree fully'

Utter wanker.

Ogdens a right ugly fucker

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Sorry for asking, I might be thick here... But how does no breaches post 2014 imply no breaches were made prior to 2014?

Could breaches have been made prior to 2014 but were ”cleaned up” as 2014 approached?
That’s what I’m trying to figure out.

I said it implies that the transactions prior to 2014 were OK. But logically, why would we have "cleaned up" after that time, when we wouldn't have known this would happen five years later?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

No that was Simon Jordan’s dad

And Delaneys dad.

Think its time to create a new twitter account


Time to give these arseholes a lashing in 180 characters

 

[Clercqs]

Ha!