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

Blue Theatre said:
"... although we did try to ban you from playing European football, call you cheats, impose another huge fine, drag your reputation through the mud, used hacked emails against you, and our concerted efforts mean that fans of every other club in the World now hate you".
Click to expand...

you just have to read the parts about their reasoning to charge us to see what they really think of us, they hold us in utter contempt. Completely partisan and unprofessional language.
 
stan bowles said:
Obstructing a UEFA investigation, whether innocent or not, was deemed sufficiently worthy of a heavy fine, albeit reduced. 100,000 euros initial UEFA hearing costs also to be paid by City. CAS legal costs to be shared - not sure why.
Click to expand...

We were found to have breached regulations - why would we not have to pay some of the costs?
 
Sky report on it was all of 2 minutes and nothing about doctored emails, emails years before ffp etc. All about our fine and us not co-operating.
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
I've only skim read, but it came across that UEFA absolutely went to town on the charges and its insinuations about us, which doesn't bode well.

Am I right in concluding:

UEFA did follow due process, but both sides misinterpreted the deadline for time-barring.
City withheld evidence, the CAS panel took a dim view on it and didn't appear to recognise our legitimate reasoning.
It appears the additional evidence has almost completely disproved the substance of UEFA's charges. It also appears that any remaining commentary or accusations amounted to hearsay and hypotheticals with no substance.
The evidence and testimonies demonstrated that UEFA also had no reasonable evidence for any of the time-barred accusations, even though the CAS panel did not really make a full conclusion on this.
The original evidence was edited and misrepresented, and although City have not provided full unredacted access it is sufficient to dismiss UEFA's interpretation.
CAS acknowledged our concerns on the leaks, but as there is an ethics case outstanding refusing to take the matter further.
It is nonetheless clear that City did far more than "get off on a technicality" and actually, judging by the breakdown, had to defend itself far more than the media suspected as CAS did more of it as admissible than I initially expected.

Am I about right or can someone who has time to read it more thoroughly correct me?
Click to expand...

Are you disappointed with the outcome?
 
stan bowles said:
Haven't seen one journalist on Twitter give a balanced take on this. Also saw K-H Rummenigge earlier echoing Tebas's words to the effect that City got off because UEFA fucked up the case. Hope a few writs will be winging their way out of the Etihad soon.
Click to expand...
Or even from UEFA to show they have learned from their errors
 
Here's what Rob summarised for his readers -

CAS
That said, the Panel is of the view that UEFA by no means filed frivolous charges against MCFC. As also acknowledged by MCFC, there was a legitimate basis to prosecute MCFC, but, based on the evidence on file, the Panel finds that it cannot reach the conclusion that disguised equity funding was paid to MCFC by HHSM and/or ADUG through Etihad.

Rob Harris
UEFA charges not "frivolous” & “legitimate basis to prosecute"
 
Johnny Yen said:
Here's how the BBC are putting it: "Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, says Cas"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53571659
Nasty shits.
Click to expand...
Official complaint gone in..
I feel I have to complain about the current bbc sport headline regarding Manchester Citys recent exoneration from uefas 2 year ban.
the headline ..Man City showed "blatant disregard" to co-operating with Uefa's investigation into potential Financial Fair Play (FFP) breaches ...leading with such a headline without the reporter doing any research into the published CAS documents or the case itself is innacurate and misleading and is distorting the information...leading with such a statement shows whoever wrote it has an agenda and is not interested in reporting the truth
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
From my quick reading, which I haven't finished, CAS declared that anything that happened prior to 2014 was time-barred but not anything after. So they could examine the sponsorship revenues that were paid after 2014 and found those were properly paid and weren't disguised equity funding. That clearly implies that had the other payments not been time-barred, they would also have been found to be properly paid.

Therefore anyone claiming we got off "on a technicality" is completely wrong.
Click to expand...
I'll just carry this forward.
 
ManCityX said:
The impartial BBC. Absolute disgrace.

Click to expand...

Why we should do a Utd ad refuse to give interviews for MOTD till we get a balanced reporting on us. Club needs to do a strong statement in the next few days outlining why we did not co-operate ie leaks, witch-hunt and previous issues with them then include the doctored emails, dates changed, emails changed etc
 
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