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

[Damanino]

Well if anyone thought the full CAS report we waited for will detail the whole thing and will be able to put City in a more positive light just watch the headlines across the media.

we are getting another big PR beating same as when the CAS decision was made public. Regardless of what the actual report says.

 

[Shirley]

Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas

Interesting how the BBC third rate hack sees it as more important to have the 'blatant disregard' element as the lead (the minor and welded on additional charge), and tags on the non-breach (the main charge) as a bit of an afterthought. Anyone reading that would be led to believe that blatantly disregarding a process is more heinous than cooking the books.

Since baconface retired the BBC has simply become a PR outlet for the rags.

 

[lancs blue]

Why would they not pay us for a year? I'd suggest they just took Pearce's statement at face value, when he could have made a mistake. Or something else could have happened in 2014/15 whcih meant that it didn't fit the payment pattern referred to in the email.

Either that or it was a transcription error although I'd expect City to have spotted it when they reviewed the document.

 

[bluecityste]

Even the re-written BBC report is incredibly anti-city. And surprisingly Dan Roan's analysis at the end is perhaps the most in support paragraphs (contrary to his usual stance!).

Despite stating on more than one occasion that we are cleared, completely, I can still imagine A LOT of people reading the report and coming away with the distinct impression that we 'got away with one' due to the type of language used.

Also, the sheer volume of detail that it delves into UEFAs belief that we consistently and repeatedly attempted to avoid or disrupt the investigation makes it seem that we really must have been trying to hide something - before mentioning as a mere side-note that that CASS only found 2 instances of this, and then not really trying to explain why this may have been (because of the leaks and the fact that the investigation should not have been happening in the first place!).

I hate the fact that I have to pay them £150 for this!

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

at the second leg of the League Cup semi in January I went looking for the cuunt Jamie Jackson at half time, I managed to walk in and around the media area around the tunnel but they were pretty much all away pissing or noshing. Not sure what I would have done if I had found the cuunt, probably best I didn’t !

You would be better off waiting until he left the ground, hoodie on, in case it's a bit chilly obviously, then you could have a nice chat about the match....

 

[Burtonblue]

It's the slant they were bound to go for and how we all knew it would be reported.

You have to feel sorry for him and his ilk. They must feel like they were promised a 5 course Michelin-starred banquet only to then be given scraps from the local chippy for tea instead.

And that’s all they’ll get when they next show up at the Etihad.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

On how to deal with the UEFA investigation. I'd say we were advised that we were within our rights not to co-operate.

In fact it specifically says, towards the bottom of page 11 of the CAS document (which is part of the Adjudicatory Chamber's verdict, not CAS's own wording) "It is recognised that the investigation raised very serious issues for the club, and it was entitled to instruct its solicitors to defend its position vigorously". So it's quite clear we did this on legal advice. Hence why I believe we'll appeal.

 

[BuryBlue1977]

You receive a letter for speeding but refuse to pay the fine and send off your license. The police take you to court where you then prove it wasn’t you driving as you’d sold the car a month before the offence took place. You then get fined for refusing to cooperate but let off for the main offence. BBC report you are a reckless driver and have been found guilty in court. Next time I see a detector van I’m going to take a shit in its fuel tank.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas

Interesting how the BBC third rate hack sees it as more important to have the 'blatant disregard' element as the lead (the minor and welded on additional charge), and tags on the non-breach (the main charge) as a bit of an afterthought. Anyone reading that would be led to believe that blatantly disregarding a process is more heinous than cooking the books.

They know what they’re doing. A headline of “CAS says Manchester City did not break the FFP rules they were accused of but did show a blatant disregard for UEFA rules by failing to cooperate with the investigation” says the same thing and would be acceptable to most City fans, but doesn’t have the impact they want.

 

[Burtonblue]

Does anyone have the original post?

At fucking last!
Proof that our legal office has been onto the BBC.
The fight back has started.

 

[Ancoats blue]

the media are still reporting the fine as city being guilty ??????

It says they were found guilty of not co-operating with UEFA, but we all knew that beforehand .... the club were convinced that they never gonna get a fair trial out of a bent organisation like UEFA , so they simply just blanked them until they could get a fair trial off someone else!

 

[meltonblue]

I thought I read somewhere that bits had been taken from various different emails and stuck together to make it look like it was saying something else?

One of the emails was actually two different emails put together. They found that it didn’t change the veracity of it though.

Essentially it’s more they were selectively viewed rather than edited. Ultimately, we didn’t deny the authenticity, the argument is more they were taken out of context and it didn’t actually happen.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

His Times article doesn't show it, like all the rest of the weasels he focuses on the obstruction angle.

The obstruction angle is not even new.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I did say Pearce was our witness;)

I've read it all now, it doesn't give me the payback I'd hoped for, but a win's a win.

 

[Akpowell]

Don’t be ridiculous, she does her job as instructed.

Exactly

 

[Ancoats blue]

At fucking last!
Proof that our legal office has been onto the BBC.
The fight back has started.

Good , let's put the wind up the f**kin lot of em !

 

[mad4city]

Does it really say this?


"in the absence of particulars as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channeled through 3rd parties is based on innuendo. And does not meet the requisite standard of proof"

It does!

For my money, this is one of two extremely important -but so far, unreported - things in the verdict.

The other being that the Leaked Emails were in fact "fruit of the poisonous tree".
Only there was no proof that UEFA themselves hacked City [and they were acting on information now in the public domain], meant they allowed to pursue the case... for all the sky denigration of the original report, it now transpires that UEFA's case was only allowed to proceed on a technicality.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Also, just to make the point clearly, para 209 says, in one short sentence so not even the thickest of scouse journalists can misunderstand "The Panel notes that UEFA's case is primarily premised on the leaked emails."

Remember our convo mate;)

 

[Woody135]

Have we put out a statement yet?

 

[Rolee]

Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas

Interesting how the BBC third rate hack sees it as more important to have the 'blatant disregard' element as the lead (the minor and welded on additional charge), and tags on the non-breach (the main charge) as a bit of an afterthought. Anyone reading that would be led to believe that blatantly disregarding a process is more heinous than cooking the books.

Non cooperation is an FFP breach???