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

CAS Report: "There is no evidence that agreements were backdated or that MCFC otherwise retrospectively tried to cover up any alleged violations following the publication of the Leaked Emails."

"The majority of the panel finds that Etihad sponsorship agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM, ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be 'related parties

- The Leaked emails comprise admissible evidence - The Panel is 'not comfortably satisfied' that #MCFC disguised equity funding from HHSM and/or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from Etihad

"In the absence of a link being proven between HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad (as indicated in the figure below), the majority of the Panel finds that UEFA's theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
It still really boils my piss. UEFA take this flimsy evidence, and on that basis ban us for 2 years and drag our good name through the mud. Why the fuck should we pay them a penny. They are the ones that should be recompensing us for damages and bloody slander.

Bastards.
Click to expand...

Maybe a bit of a stretch, but this could’ve been UEFA’s plan all along. They knew they didn’t have a case but they banned City based on nothing, knew City would appeal to CAS but still got all the media attention in the process, adding more public suspicion to the club and trying to ruin our rep for as long as possible. Even if we won this case, the damage is almost irreparable.
 
By the way, if anyone thinks the press coverage of this is unacceptable,

https://www.ipso.co.uk/complain/

The standards of accuracy the press must follow -

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
PB for City and Swiss Ramble for European football are tops when it comes to understanding how football finances work. No one is close to them. I deal with financial statements, accounting pronouncements and public disclosures in filings daily and write equity research for a living (I cover an industry unrelated to sport in the States). Their analysis is top notch, thorough, detailed, as unbiased as can be expected. Journos who know shit about how financials even work can't hold a candle to either of them, which is why they've fucked this whole thing up while City and PB have been vindicated. Lazy fucks who don't understand the details and don't do their homework anyhow.

Colin's held our hands collectively through this whole thing in a way both me as a fan and me as a finance guy can doubly appreciate.
Click to expand...
Spot on mate. @Prestwich_Blue has called this right from the start. He should be awarded freedom of Bluemoon for at least a week.
 
skyblues said:
Maybe a bit of a stretch, but this could’ve been UEFA’s plan all along. They knew they didn’t have a case but they banned City based on nothing, knew City would appeal to CAS but still got all the media attention in the process, adding more public suspicion to the club and trying to ruin our rep for as long as possible. Even if we won this case, the damage is almost irreparable.
Click to expand...
I don't believe its a stretch at all. No consequences for them for doing it either.
 
Eds said:
point 225 talks about one of the leaked emails was from 10 years ago! Looks like UEFA really fucked this up...
Click to expand...

Really? Haha. What a fecking shambles. I hope there are grounds to sue Der Spiegel. Surely they have an obligation to apply some form of quality control in relation to 'primary source' information. Unless they manipulated the emails, which would surely give us grounds to pursue legal damages.
 
All that really mattered was that the substantive charges were overturned as the consequences would have been awful if they weren't. As they have been the rest is just noise as nothing in the judgement will change opposition fans views and the usual media hacks will continue to spout shite.

Maybe the club might go a bit more on the front foot with the worst offenders but I'm not even sure about that.
 
Burtonblue said:
Would be a real pity not to be able to welcome the hateful eight at the Etihad next season if crowds are still banned which v much looks the case.
I hope we treat the away directors appropriately though. No room for them in the Chairman’s lounge any more. Stick them in a box as far away from our officials as possible and give them a plate of stale sarnies.
Enough mr nice guy....
Click to expand...
Mancini voice:
“Only this!”
 
Mike Cledford said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read that as an ironic statement, see the dots at the end....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top