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

[laserblue]

Someone needs to tell him it's because we're "MASSIVE"

Someone needs to tell him that the leaked information he got from Parry and/or Gill was both malicious and shit.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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 think it's simply that in light of having no proof, you judge behaviour by what you can see. It all goes back to there being no proof of wrongdoing.

 

[Nails]

I just hope someone can rewrite this CAS-conclusion in layman’s terms so that even the least talented opposing fan understands that we did nothing wrong.

So we might be done with UEFA now, but what about the FA? The investigation from Premier League is still ongoing? This should help them close their case surely? On the other hand they have no five year timeframe to take into consideration, if something shady happened prior to 2014, which they could dig up. Not that I believe we did anything wrong from day 1.

This might sum it up. From a mate's FB page:

So the full CAS judgment is out. CAS says, again, that there is no evidence that City disguised equity funding as sponsorship.

CAS also said if UEFA had seen the evidence that was presented by City to CAS at the appeal, they would've probably come to the same conclusion.

But UEFA didn't REQUEST that info from City before delivering the two-year ban.

UEFA was under pressure to act from the G14 clubs and offered up a terribly weak case because there was NO infraction from City, something many City fans had already worked out for themselves, as the evidence clearing City was already in the public domain.

What a hilarious balls-up by UEFA and the 'Hateful Eight'.

 

[Blueknows]

1. uefa chose to believe extracts from emails created evidence of a pattern of deception.
2. City refused to divulge un redacted copies of every email, partly because they felt they were obtained illegally and partly becuase they contained sensitive information and had no faith in uefa to treat them with confidentiality.
3. there is no evidence of any financial mis practice, on the contary, for uefa to prove this, it would mean that not only city, but also half a dozen reputable auditors (pwg etc) would have also had to have agreed to be part of the conspiracy.
4. There was potential to disguise the origins of funding, but not proven, partly because of 5 year time rule, but even then no evidence, just potential and a view that both parties, sponsors and city would have benefited.

Reading through some of the detail, it sounds like our legal team tore them to peices (uefa, not cas)

 

[johnevans]

Fucking wished I hadn't. We are so cleared by this judgment and the Mail attacks us to make us look a guilty party in some way. Trying to find a negative headline the desperate twats.

You’re correct.. that article is a travesty.. how the f*ckwit who wrote it sleeps at night is beyond me.. a complete waste of time and the crayons he wrote it with..

 

[Norbiton]

You'd think the fact that a leading and apparently respected European investigative journal printed a story based on leaked doctored stolen evidence would be quite an interesting story for the media to pursue

 

[TheThirdDeano]

What the FUCK were UEFA thinking?

I'm telling you now, they themselves were not the driving force for this, it was the shadowy **** clubs in the background, a last hail mary and they fucked it.

Good stuff!

 

[RobinHood]

Tweeted all the horrible c@nts again but can't find Nick Dick Harris. Anyone know the tools handle?

@Prick

 

[HelloCity]

Any news on the Premier League’s investigation? ;)

 

[cityontheup]

Para 84 confirms that the emails were edited selectively and two were merged to give a completely misleading impression.

Also 'HH' was not Sheikh Mansour. Sorry @cjn - posted that then saw your post.

And Tony Evans' claim that UEFA weren't substantially relying on the emails was complete bollocks. That was their whole case, as I said.

Given that they have cobbled together two separate emails, could this been seen as fraud?