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

It's what they and the rest of the media do. Clickbait headline first, truth later when they know most people have already seen the first one.
Was so f---ing annoyed couldnt remember what the first headline was exactly. They dont usually do it that quickly wonder if the number of complaints have hastened this it's usually an overnight thing !
 
Just read Conns pile of shit in the Guardian and it’s basically questioning the impartiality of CAS, even though UEFA agreed to the appointments. It also harps on about time barred stuff in great detail, I mean if it’s time barred it’s time barred! A lot of these media wankers will have had their next career steps mapped out basically picking over the bones of City but they lost, now they are trying to salvage their shitty careers. You even get the distinct impression UEFA were strong armed into banning City even though they probably knew it would be overturned.
 
So am i correct in thinking that

A) UEFA based part of their accusations on hacked emails - those emails have been proven to be not only illegally obtained but then tampered with/edited to make it seem that we were doing wrong. ie - someone deliberately tried to set us up by providing and or using evidence that was false.

B) The time bared thing - they tried to do us for deals/money that were outside the timeframe (before) FFP was brought in? UEFA basically tried to do us for doing something before the rules even existed?

Is that about the short of it?

The illegal obtaining is irrelevant - they were considered admissible.
Only one was tampered (combination of 2) and was deemed to not affect veracity. No implication that this was done y UEFA.
The others were not edited by UEFA, but were excerpts only.

Timebarring - they claimed a different interpretation of the timebarring clause. CAS disagreed with their interpretation.

As far as I can tell, not fully correct on any point.
 
The Conn piece? Very odd to focus on the CFCB report so much. Shame CAS said no.

The "CFCB proved ADUG funding of other sponsorships in 2012" is amazingly bent in it's perspective - no mention that it's based on an email or two, and similar claims were binned as unsupported.
Yes, the Conn piece. How does a "journalist" follow the case, read the report, and then come up with the following two bullet points to headline the story?
  • Judgment rules that much of Uefa’s case was ‘time-barred’
  • Cas panel chairman Rui Botica Santos recommended by City
Translation: "City got off on a technicality" and "City got off due to biased judge". Amazing.
 
"Dear sirs"

That won't go down well at the bbc, they will have you down as a sexist, probably front page bbc headlines tomorrow.

"Manchester City fan write's disgracefully sexist letter"

"bbc employee severely traumatised"

I thought it was better to go with this than "dear fuckwits on the website's editing desk"
 
So am i correct in thinking that

A) UEFA based part of their accusations on hacked emails - those emails have been proven to be not only illegally obtained but then tampered with/edited to make it seem that we were doing wrong. ie - someone deliberately tried to set us up by providing and or using evidence that was false.

B) The time bared thing - they tried to do us for deals/money that were outside the timeframe (before) FFP was brought in? UEFA basically tried to do us for doing something before the rules even existed?

C) UEFA's claims that we didn't cooperate multiple times was actually shown to be non cooperation just twice - refusing to answer questions based on evidence we knew to be at least incorrect and at worst a "fit up."

Is that about the short of it?

Just on the first one, the emails were taken out of context as key information was omitted from them. They weren’t edited in terms of rewritten.
 
I gather Ogden has singled out Tariq Panja & Rob Harris as "impartial sources" when both the NY Times and Associated Press were specifically named in the judgement as the publishers of supposedly confidential information that could only have come from inside UEFA. Yep, that's about as impartial as you can get. Ziegler is being briefed by City and Marcotti is his own man and the soundest journalist on FFP so I'll listed to what they have to say but Panja & Harris - really?

Ziegler's Times piece appears to be lead with the blatant disregard angle too.

Ogden's choices were hilarious though.
 
Just read Conns pile of shit in the Guardian and it’s basically questioning the impartiality of CAS, even though UEFA agreed to the appointments. It also harps on about time barred stuff in great detail, I mean if it’s time barred it’s time barred! A lot of these media wankers will have had their next career steps mapped out basically picking over the bones of City but they lost, now they are trying to salvage their shitty careers. You even get the distinct impression UEFA were strong armed into banning City even though they probably knew it would be overturned.
Some emails were before FFP even existed,do they really think they should be involved in this case lol
 
I gather Ogden has singled out Tariq Panja & Rob Harris as "impartial sources" when both the NY Times and Associated Press were specifically named in the judgement as the publishers of supposedly confidential information that could only have come from inside UEFA. Yep, that's about as impartial as you can get. Ziegler is being briefed by City and Marcotti is his own man and the soundest journalist on FFP so I'll listed to what they have to say but Panja & Harris - really?

I thought he was being sarcastic! I could well be wrong.
 
Yes, the Conn piece. How does a "journalist" follow the case, read the report, and then come up with the following two bullet points to headline the story?
  • Judgment rules that much of Uefa’s case was ‘time-barred’
  • Cas panel chairman Rui Botica Santos recommended by City
Translation: "City got off on a technicality" and "City got off due to biased judge". Amazing.

The Santos thing is quite strange, especially as nobody had a problem with it. It's full of implied dodginess while avoiding actually saying it.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top