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

spacecadet said:
He did a nice job as a rag befriending a few on here while at goal.com. Once at the Athletic he would have been on bigger dollar and just wrote to agenda/ belief to suit his paymasters, shameful.
Click to expand...

He’s a typical Rag, can’t hold a candle to Stew Brennan.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
Wow. Page 72 point 254.

UEFA also accepted in answer from a direct question from the Panel that it was not alleging that HHSM gave false evidence.

As Sheikh Mansour has given written testimony that he has never approved payment through third parties.

Didn’t have the bollocks to say it in a serious legal setting did you UEFA? Fucking cowards.
Click to expand...
Wow we got the big boss in !
 
levets said:
I just checked, there were four, but one was acting as clerk. 3 arbiters
Click to expand...
I think you're misreading that.

The President, two Arbitrators & an Ad hoc Clerk. As I understand it the two Arbitrators consider the evidence and give their verdict on it, if they disagree then the President has the deciding vote. The Clerk (Attorney-at-law or not) is just that, a clerk.
 
levets said:
You see, Harris is just being a prick here. The evidence is there, Patrice is correct, but I can’t comment because I’m blocked. This is the shit house way the journos act.
Click to expand...

He's trying to get you to bite. He doesn't say which emails. I am betting he will be refering to the ones we submitted that were true and authentic. CAS did accept these. His phrasing is trying to make it sound like it's the cut and paste emails (that were bollocks) UEFA based their whole gamble on.
 
vmsuhail said:
Got this from City_Xtra

"CAS Report: "UEFA wishes to add that it considers MCFC to be a very important participant to UEFA club competitions. It welcomes all the good which MCFC has brought to the football world and it welcomes significant investments made by the club and its owners."
Click to expand...

Wonder if the media will mention this.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
Wow. Page 72 point 254.

UEFA also accepted in answer from a direct question from the Panel that it was not alleging that HHSM gave false evidence.

As Sheikh Mansour has given written testimony that he has never approved payment through third parties.

Didn’t have the bollocks to say it in a serious legal setting did you UEFA? Fucking cowards.
Click to expand...

Mansour gave evidence?

Was that known?
 
Blue_eyes said:
Probably been suggested already, but it seems now that City wanted the cas hearing knowing that we would be cleared, and the media would respond with the correct and fair analysis of the whole affair. This would be more rewarding in the public domain than eufa "letting us off" beforehand, a sound plan. The only drawback is that our media never had any intention of giving us a fair and balanced reporting of the outcome. I have followed City for long enough to have been through practically every type of adversity possible, which has put us at the mercy of some other fans enjoying an easier ride in following their clubs. While nothing will stop my proud association with City, I do feel that this is an opportunity for the club to consider the fans wishes and publicly sue the fuck out of the biggest perpetrators( bbc ) in this anti City campaign, thus shutting all of the twats up once and for all.
Click to expand...

clearly something got to be done and manchester city need to defend our fan base here. the witch hunt going on has to stop and the clubs need to step up and say enough is enough, the city fans are the target and by using a major media site (BBC) to bash the city fans again is wrong

we are innocent and not guilty of the things uefa was saying its plan and simple, why should city not have the right to defend itself against uefa and we have always said we are clean and up front, so manchester city did the right thing here let the CAS sort it out and clear our name once and for all then nobody can claim over wise that we are not guilty

but blow me down the BBC make out we are guilty and in the wrong ? would have let anybody outside of the BBC look at there finances document, and don't get me starting on the pedo rings and ledgers and infomation on people that was at it in there little private club
 
I love and also hate how a lot of the media is still trying their hardest to be as negative as possible. FailIng to corporate with UEFA is hardly the crime of the century. Lets put it this way, which is worst: failing to co-operate or Liverpool hacking our scouting system? Not a word mentioned about that since it came out.

Also not a word mentioned about the hacked e-mails being 'amended' (to put it kindly) at all. It's just becoming pathetic now. The ruling is all there in black and white, clear as crystal and they still choose to ignore that and focus on small negatives.

I'll say it again absolutely pathetic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
levets said:
You see, Harris is just being a prick here. The evidence is there, Patrice is correct, but I can’t comment because I’m blocked. This is the shit house way the journos act.
Click to expand...
I replied by stating that we are delighted the emails were permitted as evidence because we could then prove that UEFAS copies were butchered and mangled to make us look guilty when in fact they’d prove we did nothing untoward
 
HH Sheikh Mansour at the top;

2820034ace097733a0221195837e0a51bb11e2d1.png
 
Manc in London said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would imagine they have an obligation to establish whether their information comes from illegally gained content or not as well
 
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