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

Shirley said:
I don't want to derail this thread on this subject as there are other appropriate threads but there's is no one as biased as me regarding supporting City and I'll clutch at straws too but use your eyes and believe what you see.
Click to expand...

excuse me, I don’t visit Anfield or pay much attention to the nasty cuunts, why would I take time to check if stands were full or not when the cuunts are on TV, I don’t watch them!

I posted a link from the Liverpool Echo, end of.

now please don’t respond.
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
not my words.....

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...ws/liverpool-anfield-empy-seats-2000-14164939
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52529679
The BBC reckon Matchday income share is as little as 13% of PL revenue compared to 43% in the first PL season. I wonder if that's just domestically or total revenue.

Either way, I always tell them the "emptyhad" jibes are a myth to begin with and a waste of time because matchday income stopped being an indicator for how big a club is ages ago. They don't really care for facts though, often saying ridiculous things like "can't even sell out for a derby".
 
oddfellows said:
Conn man has got serious problems he is infatuated with us to the point he is a serial stalker.

Makes you wonder what his agenda is and who's payroll he's on.

Allegedly of course.
Click to expand...
He has problems with the heritage of our owners. He's not the only one. The last 10 years have opened my eyes a bit to the elephant in the room in the UK
 
M18CTID said:
Conn’s at it again:
Click to expand...


He's suggesting we should be friends with clubs who helped push to investigate us on out of context emails and clubs who wrote to CAS to ban us from the champs league?

He's gone off the deep end.

The Guardian likes to think of itself as above the likes of the Mail and the Sun but they're exactly the same, pushing agendas and ignoring evidence.
 
bluesoup said:
Would have thought Samuel would have a piece to copy by now.... he is very quiet for something as big as this
Click to expand...
846-02797504en_Masterfile.jpg
 
meltonblue said:
Neither nominate, their arbitrators do. What that paragraph is saying is that the president is not decided upon until both parties have said who their own arbitrators are.

We suggested a potential president when we informed CAS who our arbitrator was, Uefa agreed with it when they informed who their arbitrator was. The president of the division would then get the agreement of the two arbitrators and then the president of the panel is appointed.

That’s all standard practice. If the arbitrators hadn’t agreed to the president proposed then the president of the division would choose it instead.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks.
I did think it was odd, and not what had been thought beforehand.
 
What sort of audience do the WhatsApp group actually have in total? Can't see it being huge, or should I say significant enough to damage the club especially globally.

We'll keep on moving forward while they keep biting on those lemons, suck it up hacks as this train will continue motoring forward (legally)
 
To be honest, I am fed up with this now. City have achieved their objective, we the fans have made our points, and the haters in the media will continue to vent their spleen. Time for us to move on: we have a CL campaign to finish, a transfer window to negotiate, and, very soon, a new season to enjoy. Football!
City for the title!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The time barred stuff was simply 2 of the earlier years of the Etihad sponsorship and they found no evidence of any wrongdoing regarding funding in the years that weren't time-barred.

Therefore it's a pretty safe bet that there was nothing in those earlier years that might have incriminated us.
Click to expand...
Although the entirety of the Etisalat sponsorship deal was also time barred and we have no real info in respect of it. I am Sure if necessary we could have proved our innocence but the fact we didn’t is another element the complete bastards in the press are using as a stick to beat us. Especially Mr Conn. If he’s not careful I will set my Uncle Ray on him and if he’s reading this he will know exactly who that is. It’s from an article he wrote about Manchester Maccabi when he was actually a decent journalist.
 
Shads said:
Although the entirety of the Etisalat sponsorship deal was also time barred and we have no real info in respect of it. I am Sure if necessary we could have proved our innocence but the fact we didn’t is another element the complete bastards in the press are using as a stick to beat us. Especially Mr Conn. If he’s not careful I will set my Uncle Ray on him and if he’s reading this he will know exactly who that is. It’s from an article he wrote about Manchester Maccabi when he was actually a decent journalist.
Click to expand...

Seemed to me there was sufficient justification within the CAS report to clear of us the Etisalat charges regardless.
 
jrb said:
Another hatchet job on City by Conn.

Mansour's payments and a U-turn by Uefa: key Manchester City findings

Court of arbitration for sport judgment also finds no Uefa bias and shows why an alleged FFP breach was unsubstantiated


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-city-findings-court-of-arbitration-for-sport
Click to expand...

I like the way Conn is quick to report that there was no evidence of UEFA bias yet I haven’t seen him mention that there were no evidence of UEFAs main charges against us.
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
Seemed to me there was sufficient justification within the CAS report to clear of us the Etisalat charges regardless.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall any such evidence. There was no transactional evidence re Etisalat and Simon Pearce was specifically only asked about Etihad dealings.
 
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