Brightwell Bros.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 7,034
Who the fuck is Nick Harris??
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
That’s the crux of the problem, how can you have a member of an organization mistrust the organization to the degree we do. I would have thought after this, some superior organization should be insisting UEFA get its house in order. Or am I being naiveI think City were probably saying this is a joke, we’ve told you they’re hacked and they’re out of context. There is no case. Hoping that it would end there.
UEFA were sufficiently pressured to pursue even without evidence, calling us out to produce said evidence at Cas or if we were bluffing they would be vindicated.
Both sides “called” essentially to bets and bluffs and when the cards were shown we had the full house and they had a pair of 2s.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Murderers > CheatsI suggest you go to the 'man city' thread on Rawk to see how they feel. You won't be surprised.
BucksBlue
Well-Known Member
Makes me proud to feel the love and passion we true City fans have always had for our club. It seems it's still us against the media for some time to come but we'll stay together and get stronger. We are CITY and the boys in blue never give in.
Here's my BBC complaint just posted:
News headlines should be centred upon the core outcome of an event. In this case fair minded readers should expect integrity and neutrality from the BBC and this headline and the majority of the article was distorted. This is my complaint.
The 'tabloid clickbait' heading is not worthy of the BBC of old. As a Manchester City supporter for over 60 years I have never been more proud of my club for it's work on and off the pitch most notably with the current owners and staff. Dan Roan has clearly aimed his assessment on placating those with an agenda to undermine MCFC.
In closing I simply offer what I consider to be an unbiased headline.
BBC current headline:
Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas.
My suggested headline:
Manchester City fully exonerated by Cas on FFP funding, but showed 'disregard' to Uefa .
Here's my BBC complaint just posted:
News headlines should be centred upon the core outcome of an event. In this case fair minded readers should expect integrity and neutrality from the BBC and this headline and the majority of the article was distorted. This is my complaint.
The 'tabloid clickbait' heading is not worthy of the BBC of old. As a Manchester City supporter for over 60 years I have never been more proud of my club for it's work on and off the pitch most notably with the current owners and staff. Dan Roan has clearly aimed his assessment on placating those with an agenda to undermine MCFC.
In closing I simply offer what I consider to be an unbiased headline.
BBC current headline:
Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas.
My suggested headline:
Manchester City fully exonerated by Cas on FFP funding, but showed 'disregard' to Uefa .
come-on-barney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 9,935
Play load .
We need to bid for any player they after and drive the market through the roof. Make them overpay for every player.
TheCentralScrutinizer
Well-Known Member
a nut job that calls himself a journalist & generally just repeats what any of the whattsap wankers post....he saw the lizards a few years ago & is still recovering.......Who the fuck is Nick Harris??
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,188
The relationship with UEFA had totally broken down so we were no longer prepared to cooperate with our own hanging. UEFA ignored the document dossier for a start.The thing I am struggling with is what advantage we gained by not co-operating with the UEFA investigation? I have no doubt that even if we had then UEFA would have tried to make something stick but we still would have had the option to go to CAS for a de bono hearing.
UEFA may well have tried to expand their investigation into a general fishing trip but at that point we could have refused to co-operate further and I assume CAS would have backed that stance. We have still come away from CAS with a substantial fine and, more importantly, we have been censured for non-co-operation thereby giving the media ammunition to infer that we were hiding something.
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,293
I'm annoyed I cocked up my BBC complaint before double checking the spliced email point, they probably wont know what I'm on about anyway though, none of them will have read the report properly. What chance is there of them reading the complaints properly?
My point was, aside from what they chose not to mention in favour of what they deemed relevant/worthy of a mention, was the definition of disingenuous to my eyes and shows an undeniable bias.
What was quite damning, was that CAS outlined that one of the emails was in fact 2emails from different time frames, "one of which was from 2010 before FFP rules had even been completely drafted"(it wasn't see Fig 1 below). So what appeared to be an attempt to mislead the public was not only not condemned on a professional level, it wasn't even deemed worthy of a mention by the author of that article, which can only lead me to wonder about the journalistic standards held by The BBC themselves.
Fig 1 - They were both from August 2013, I should have said "It clearly appeared as if there was a lot removed, obscuring context." Which still appears shady. We can assume this from CAS' "a distorted view" comment. Remembering it was Der Spiegel who originally distorted the emails to mislead the public, not build a case off them. It was UEFA who then built its case off them. The point being, just because it was deemed admissible to explore on a legal basis, it doesn't mean Der Spiegel weren't being misleading/taking things out of context in their original presentation of the emails.
It's actually a good thing that the CFCB had very little to hide behind with the time-barred excuse in the end. I see why City wanted to try that route first because it's faster. Just because something is time barred, it doesn't mean City wouldn't have been able to either disprove it or show that the CFCB had no evidence. I have little doubt that the Etisalat 2012-13 claim would have been squashed too had the CAS chosen to explore it. They simply didn't need to go through that process because it was dismissed outright. In light of all the other points that were shown to have no proof, how likely is it that the one claim UEFA had proof for(which nobody has seen) was the one claim that was time-barred? Not likely at all I'd say.
My point was, aside from what they chose not to mention in favour of what they deemed relevant/worthy of a mention, was the definition of disingenuous to my eyes and shows an undeniable bias.
What was quite damning, was that CAS outlined that one of the emails was in fact 2emails from different time frames, "one of which was from 2010 before FFP rules had even been completely drafted"(it wasn't see Fig 1 below). So what appeared to be an attempt to mislead the public was not only not condemned on a professional level, it wasn't even deemed worthy of a mention by the author of that article, which can only lead me to wonder about the journalistic standards held by The BBC themselves.
Fig 1 - They were both from August 2013, I should have said "It clearly appeared as if there was a lot removed, obscuring context." Which still appears shady. We can assume this from CAS' "a distorted view" comment. Remembering it was Der Spiegel who originally distorted the emails to mislead the public, not build a case off them. It was UEFA who then built its case off them. The point being, just because it was deemed admissible to explore on a legal basis, it doesn't mean Der Spiegel weren't being misleading/taking things out of context in their original presentation of the emails.
It's actually a good thing that the CFCB had very little to hide behind with the time-barred excuse in the end. I see why City wanted to try that route first because it's faster. Just because something is time barred, it doesn't mean City wouldn't have been able to either disprove it or show that the CFCB had no evidence. I have little doubt that the Etisalat 2012-13 claim would have been squashed too had the CAS chosen to explore it. They simply didn't need to go through that process because it was dismissed outright. In light of all the other points that were shown to have no proof, how likely is it that the one claim UEFA had proof for(which nobody has seen) was the one claim that was time-barred? Not likely at all I'd say.
Last edited:
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Der Spiegel? Yes, undoubtedly. They had the full email chains with dates but decided to cherry pick, redact dates, edit contents and actually combine 2 into 1.No doubt amongst that 5.5 million, they probably already had evidence that exonerated us.
UEFA only had the published emails (the exact same ones we could read). They asked DS for access or more information and DS told them to speak to Pinto. UEFA decided not to do that, presumably because Pinto is holding on to them looking for a deal and they're aware of that. That said CAS did pull UEFA up for asking us for information and then not bothering to follow up when we ignored them. UEFA really don't come out of this very well.
Not saying the BBC article is fair (I haven't read it) however it's been known for weeks that City were found not to have committed the more serious allegations but the nature of the lack of co-operation was only made known when the full judgement was released yesterday.
Sorry don’t agree with the argument. The announcement a couple weeks ago gave the conclusion;
- we were innocent of the severe ban related ffp violations
- we were guilty of the lesser fine related non conpliance violation
No substance was provided to either. This report gives details of both.
But most media outlets have focussed on the detail surrounding the non-compliance and very few have focussed on the detail surrounding the unfounded ffp violations.
It isnt the most recent story, its the only negative story to find.