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

DorisBlue said:
I 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.
Click to expand...

A pair of 2s? That good a hand?!
 
BlueAnorak said:
We gave them the documents in due time.
We refused to comply with a Kangaroo Court in the run up to that point. Not providing witnesses to be brought before the UEFA hanging court seems to be the main issue.
Click to expand...
It was witnesses and financial documentation. Don’t get me wrong I get and agree with why we did it, but it is unarguable that this was a breach of Art 56.
 
Shads said:
It was witnesses and financial documentation. Don’t get me wrong I get and agree with why we did it, but it is unarguable that this was a breach of Art 56.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - but cooperating with your own hanging is generally not a good idea.
 
Centurions said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thread, but do we know who doctored the e-mails?
Germany have a press ombudsman, like the UK, https://www.presserat.de/en.html. If Der Spiegel have falsified or used falsified e-mails then it must be worth making a complaint(s) to presserat about their standards of journalism.

Who can complain?
Anyone can complain to the German Press Council – whether personally affected or not, whether private individual, association or party. We accepts complaints on all kinds of journalistic work that has been published in a newspaper, a magazine or on the internet. However the Press Council does not deal with free sheets or private homepages. Also the Press Council is not dealing with radio, television or advertisements.
The complaint is free of charge. The Press Council is not dealing with legal issues.
 
Shads said:
It was witnesses and financial documentation. Don’t get me wrong I get and agree with why we did it, but it is unarguable that this was a breach of Art 56.
Click to expand...

Why did we do it and what have we gained by doing it?

All I can see is a very substantial fine, censure by CAS for not co-operating and an open goal for the media to infer we were hiding evidence.
 
supercity88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The impression I also get is that CAS are very diplomatic when writing up their reports so even if they feel UEFA have conducted a bent investigation they can’t actually say that in their report, hence why the strongest language they’ve used against UEFA in all this is the word “worrisome” in relation to the leaks.
 
Bluecolin said:
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
Click to expand...
I know why and fully understand why you posted that but imo, that would make things worse by further alienating the club from the mainstream media
 


giphy.gif
 
Claytop said:
Anyone clear this up? From the findings relating to the fine it sounds like we didn’t co-operate at all pretty much but then page 28 - section 48 seems to contradict this.

The next page also states CFCB breached its obligations of process.
Click to expand...
That section is what MCFC say, not what the panel found. We give our reasons why but they were not accepted.
 
Manchester City fans were criticised for questioning the integrity of the UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber, but now a journalist from the Guardian Media Group's journalist is questioning the independence of CAS, https://www.dumptheguardian.com/foo...city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules .

I think it's legitimate for a journalist to campaign, and source information pertinent to a story but a liberal newspaper should also question authority, and should be independent of it. I'd have thought UEFA, the G14, and far right football officials would be a far more natural organisations for scrutiny than a football club part-owned by an Emirati?

The Guardian Media Group is free to publish what it likes, and should remain free to do so, but Manchester City supporters should also be free to criticise and will naturally form their own opinion as to whether it's sensible to contribute towards a commercial news organisation which is such a fervent supporter of the footballing establishment.
 
blueish swede said:
I haven't read the whole thread, but do we know who doctored the e-mails?
Germany have a press ombudsman, like the UK, https://www.presserat.de/en.html. If Der Spiegel have falsified or used falsified e-mails then it must be worth making a complaint(s) to presserat about their standards of journalism.

Who can complain?
Anyone can complain to the German Press Council – whether personally affected or not, whether private individual, association or party. We accepts complaints on all kinds of journalistic work that has been published in a newspaper, a magazine or on the internet. However the Press Council does not deal with free sheets or private homepages. Also the Press Council is not dealing with radio, television or advertisements.
The complaint is free of charge. The Press Council is not dealing with legal issues.
Click to expand...

Posted earlier, DS claim that the emails were verified as authentic so only they could have altered them to suit.

Centurions said:
Der Spiegel for sure.

https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-leaks-whistleblower-rui-pinto-a-1251121.html

DER SPIEGEL and the EIC investigative reporting network nevertheless decided to work with the whistleblower's documents. Three aspects were decisive: Pinto's data is authentic; it is of strong public interest; and, on top of this, Pinto never interfered with the verification of the documents. He allowed the journalists to carry out their research on the material independently. Journalists, after all, need to be able to independently review which content is in the public interest.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I am surprised that many find media reaction so biased. We have a media thread that grows and grows so it should come as no surprise to discover that among 98 pages of detail there is a focal point that the media can feed on.

We deliberately brought on CAS because we lost all trust in a leaky UEFA. Then CAS found us guilty of non compliance. Ammo for the media with our real victory ignored.

We lose a compliance battle to win the war on the main FFP charge.
 
mosssideblue said:
I know why and fully understand why you posted that but imo, that would make things worse by further alienating the club from the mainstream media
Click to expand...

Its too late for that, we are already alienated from the media. look at the headlines they are writing, ignoring the fact that we did not inflate our income. I would refuse entry to any that have wrote misleading defamatory headlines.
 
Ancoats blue said:
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!
Click to expand...

how dare you nick my user name ?? there is only one ancoats on bluemoon haahahah
 
Burtonblue said:
I think a statement from Khaldoon is imminent.
Above and beyond the normal end of season report and a detailed explanation of the CAS report I expect him to send out a powerful message to the media. It is well overdue.
Time to silence the whispers!
Click to expand...
Thing is there not whispering, they are shouting from the tree tops, City need to cut them down & strangle the barstewards
 
Ardwick Green Blue said:
Why did we do it and what have we gained by doing it?

All I can see is a very substantial fine, censure by CAS for not co-operating and an open goal for the media to infer we were hiding evidence.
Click to expand...
MCFC rightly believed that had the sensitive and redacted info that was provided to CAS been released to UEFA directly that it would have been leaked and due to the obvious agenda may have been insufficient to actually find that we hadn’t breached FFP. They therefore waited until the matter was with CAS to do so and as a result won and got the clear agenda and poor evidence shown up for what it was. It was a calculated risk that absolutely in my humble opinion came off.
 
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