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

Metalartin said:
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

. 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.
Click to expand...
The BBC? It’s the British equivalent of Der Spiegel
 
Its going to be War on all fronts, We are alone against a mafia, however this mafia wont stay together, as they are in direct competition with each other.
 
Anyone glancing at the headline in the DT this morning could be forgiven for thinking that MCFC had committed mass murder and had been banned for life. The text rattles on about the least significant thing in the whole hatchet job, the BLATANT disregard of Uefa's witch hunt and kangaroo court. I can't recall reading anything from these jackals as to why we did't cooperate! - the only thing the RDAHMeedya have upon which they can hang anything and it becomes centre stage. Imagine someone being acquitted of murder but parked their limo on double yellow lines outside the court room. The RDAHMeedya would have him hanged by the balls on The Strand for the parking offence. I hope City are making a list, a long list, of the shithouses who have been slinging sewage our way, and when The Etihad, sponsored within Uefa's FFP rules, by the way, reopens, these people will be outside looking in!
 
Gray said:
  • German newspaper publishes illegally obtained e-mails.
  • Cartel Clubs tell UEFA we must be punished
  • UEFA charge us with offences they have already cleared us of
  • Club decide enough is enough and refuse to assist UEFA and refer the matter to CAS
  • CAS clear us but fine us for refusing to co-operate with UEFA
During this time 9 pathetic Clubs led by Arsenal try to stitch us up along with their media cohorts.

We now have the moral high ground and should use it to our advantage, we must hit back at those who clearly are out to destroy us.
Click to expand...
Excellent executive summary. I would have added under point 1 that the german newsmagazine doctored the emails, to support a certain bias of their story.
 
I truly wish and hope (though not in any real expectations) that the club from next season will contact all the football day media organisations that attend games at City and state they are required to submit the credentials of any and all their representatives and there after City will only grant access to SQEP reporters on a game by game basis and that only 1 representative from any and all of the spiteful 9 clubs will be allowed to attend matches at the Etihad until further notice ............ PLEASE
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
In view of the lack of evidence and the tampering with the emails I find it hard to understand how uefa were not held liable for all legal costs as it essentially a malicious / false accusation by them, and also where the fuck the 10m fine is justified. Despite 'winning' we have been pretty severly punished and der spiegel / uefa get off.
Click to expand...
City withholding relevant info meant the non-cooperation charge was more or less an open and shut case regardless of the reasons for it. I've no problem with that or the fine, the important part was getting the disguised equity charge cleared, that was an existential threat to the club's future. The media would have found something to run with even if we were cleared of non-cooperation.

Para.348 of the document states that City withdrew their initial request that UEFA pay all City's legal costs, this may have swayed CAS toward splitting the costs of the appeal hearing equally and leaving each party to pay their own incurred legal expenses.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
That’s likely Franny but I know the Beeb bottle it when anyone criticises them for racial bias and FWIW I feel that’s integral to how our owner has been treated. I’ve already got fellow Blues in my Supporters Club Branch And mates on Twitter complaining to the BBC
Click to expand...
A woke complaint may carry more weight( not having a go at oversize people, happy with their body shape).
 
Rosler's Mullet said:
I know exactly what happened and why mate, I'm just surprised, given the mitigating circumstances, that they still chose to fine us, I sincerely hope what PB has said proves to be correct.
Click to expand...
We were fined because CAS doesn't like sports clubs not cooperating with sports bodies. Even when the sports body has clearly set up a kangeroo court led by a hanging judge. A minimal fine in the great scheme of things.
 
I've sent in my complaint to the BBC. I said among things that I am sick of them appeasing the fans of "favoured" clubs, and that their attitude to City smacks of racist bias against Arab Muslims. I also stressed we have been acquitted of the substantive charge, and that UEFA's case was feeble, while their processes were crooked and leaked like a sieve. I hope more of us will write in it only takes a few minutes.
 
We need to here from UEFA on how they are going to sort out their kangaroo investigation process, that pre investigation, was already leaking that we were going to be banned. Maybe we should have asked for a police investigation, as UK listed company accounts, and shown them the evidence?
 
BlueAnorak said:
Well that would have been finding City guilty for the same offence twice as Etisalat was dealt with in the 2014 judgement!
Click to expand...
Actually it wasn’t dealt with in the Settlement agreement. One of the findings that City lost was that we stated this was all covered in the Settlement agreement so could not be raised again. CAS found that this was all new charges and so could be reviewed. If it hadn’t been longer than the Limitation period it was fair game.
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
We were fined because CAS doesn't like sports clubs not cooperating with sports bodies. Even when the sports body has clearly set up a kangeroo court led by a hanging judge. A minimal fine in the great scheme of things.
Click to expand...

I think we all know what would have happened mate, I just think any right (and fair) minded person, which CAS as a body are supposed to be, would have seen the witch hunt for what it was once all the evidence was on the table, and would take that into consideration, maybe I'm more fair minded than most.
 
BlueAnorak said:
We were fined because CAS doesn't like sports clubs not cooperating with sports bodies. Even when the sports body has clearly set up a kangeroo court led by a hanging judge. A minimal fine in the great scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Exactly and rightly so. CAS has to believe UEFA work within the relevant laws and as the regulatory body they conduct investigations appropriately. If we didn't provide evidence we deserved a fine but in the grand scheme we had to play it that way as UEFA don't work impartially.

A great result for City.
 
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