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

domalino said:
1) UEFA didn't prove the time barred stuff regardless of it being time barred or not.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know that too, it would give the press one less thing to hide behind instead of "taking the L" as they say on twitter.

Has anyone actually collected what was factually stated as time barred in the report? Nick is claiming things I've seen no examples of.

I only know of one period for sure. As I understand it there is a what is called a monitoring process(for break even information) which comes the year after(I think) the financial statement of the previous year, starting and ending in May. There were two payments that came in the 2013/14 monitoring process that were received June 2012 and Jan 2013 that UEFA wanted to raise to the panel.

Etisalat-Time-Barring.png

Note that it says "If it were true" rather than agreeing with UEFA, as some are trying to spin it.

All the Etihad related stuff I looked at said no evidence in the main and "not sufficient evidence" in a minority of cases. So it looks like they did explore the Etihad stuff more completely(regardless of limitation periods) and some of the Etisalat payments after 2014, unless I'm missing something.

Having thought about it, even if there is anything that was dismissed and therefore not explored(as with PSG's time barred example), that doesn't mean UEFA proved their case. In my opinion it would have probably been better to explore everything and show UEFA had no proof(that seems to be consistent with their case) but City have no say in how CAS handle things which are time barred. Since they raised it I can only assume this is just the quickest way to defeat a claim and City were happy to do that rather than drag it out longer than necessary.

Looking at the press reaction they'd still be looking for ways to spin it and claim the same thing, even if everything had "no evidence".

"Just because we can't prove it, it doesn't mean you're not cheats" would be their new retort.
 
Last edited:
bumbleblue said:
I know it’s fuck all use.but, for what it’s worth this is what I have said in my complaint to the BBC:

I just wanted to say as a usually vociferous advocate of the BBC - which ought to be a cherished unbiased institution., I am utterly despondent at the coverage of the CAS findings between UEFA and Manchester City FC. Someone reading that piece would understand the exact opposite of the truth. Though I strongly suspect that the sad ,unfettered partisanship and tribalism in football is at the root of it, as well as the need for the “click bait” nature of modern , online “churnalism”. Anyway it is clearly biased and it is evident not a modicum of research of the actual document released by CAS has taken place - given it is 93 pages long and the speed at which this witless drivel was published. Suggesting it was “oven ready “ for the report’s release. Truth is there that an English Football club ( the most successful English football club of the last decade) was accused of financial manipulation to circumvent rules on the basis of emails (stolen) which have since been proven to have been , let’s be kind and call it - manipulated. Additionally the key finding isn’t that Manchester City have been fined for not complying.. (with a kangaroo court which was leaking like a sieve ) but rather , that Manchester City Football club was found to have NOT been guilty of circumventing said rules . Anyway in short I have loved the BBC for many decades, but frankly you have failed us all. This piece of badly researched , tribalist, click baiting , pandering to the masses , utterly myopic unbalanced , lacking in depth and nuance- tripe cannot go unchallenged. It in my opinion contravenes the BBC convention on balance and fairness . Thanks for the memories Aunty Beeb, you have let yourself go though if this is anything to measure the current journalistic “stature” by. Select the best category to describe your complaintBiasDo you require a response to your complaint?Yes
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much what my complaint said. Hopefully that helps validate them! There should be an inquiry in the reporting.
 
bumbleblue said:
I know it’s fuck all use.but, for what it’s worth this is what I have said in my complaint to the BBC:

I just wanted to say as a usually vociferous advocate of the BBC - which ought to be a cherished unbiased institution., I am utterly despondent at the coverage of the CAS findings between UEFA and Manchester City FC. Someone reading that piece would understand the exact opposite of the truth. Though I strongly suspect that the sad ,unfettered partisanship and tribalism in football is at the root of it, as well as the need for the “click bait” nature of modern , online “churnalism”. Anyway it is clearly biased and it is evident not a modicum of research of the actual document released by CAS has taken place - given it is 93 pages long and the speed at which this witless drivel was published. Suggesting it was “oven ready “ for the report’s release. Truth is there that an English Football club ( the most successful English football club of the last decade) was accused of financial manipulation to circumvent rules on the basis of emails (stolen) which have since been proven to have been , let’s be kind and call it - manipulated. Additionally the key finding isn’t that Manchester City have been fined for not complying.. (with a kangaroo court which was leaking like a sieve ) but rather , that Manchester City Football club was found to have NOT been guilty of circumventing said rules . Anyway in short I have loved the BBC for many decades, but frankly you have failed us all. This piece of badly researched , tribalist, click baiting , pandering to the masses , utterly myopic unbalanced , lacking in depth and nuance- tripe cannot go unchallenged. It in my opinion contravenes the BBC convention on balance and fairness . Thanks for the memories Aunty Beeb, you have let yourself go though if this is anything to measure the current journalistic “stature” by. Select the best category to describe your complaintBiasDo you require a response to your complaint?Yes
Click to expand...
I think Ofcom should be contacted too. This type of behaviour surely conteravenes the bbc's terms as a public service?
 
Metalartin said:
I'd like to know that too, it would give the press one less thing to hide behind instead of "taking the L" as they say on twitter.

Has anyone actually collected what was factually stated as time barred in the report? Nick is claiming things I've seen no examples of.

I only know of one for sure. The Etisalat 2012-13 payments(I thought the others weren't timebared after that point?), all the Etihad related stuff I looked at said no evidence in the main and "not sufficient evidence" in a minority of cases.

Having thought about it, even if it was dismissed and therefore not even explored(as with PSG's time barred example), that doesn't mean UEFA proved their case. In my opinion it would have probably been better to explore it and show UEFA had no proof on that too but City have no say in how CAS handle things which are time barred.

Looking at the press reaction they'd still be looking for ways to spin it and claim the same thing, even if everything had "no evidence".

"Just because we can't prove it, it doesn't mean you're not cheats" would be their new retort.
Click to expand...

The issue I have more is how big a deal they are making of that tbh. That sponsorship essentially paid for Wilfried Bony, I’d argue we were punished enough already ;)

Ultimately, all of this is about burden of proof. Us getting the sponsors themselves to say that they paid it (and likewise Mansour saying he didn’t) was always going to be enough for there not to be anywhere near the level of comfortable satisfaction needed from CAS. What I don’t understand is on some of those points, it was only a majority of the panel finding rather than all of the panel. We’ve seen insinuation already of bias from two arbitrators towards us from journalists - why not the insinuation of bias from the third towards Uefa instead...?

I have to be honest though, I would absolutely love the next set of sponsorships that we sign to not be Abu Dhabi companies so that this isn’t even an insinuation that can be levelled at us and I do think in the early days we probably were...creative in some aspects.

Whether we actually did anything dodgy is ultimately irrelevant though, there is no proof. I’ll always believe Liverpool did something dodgy in writing off 50m on stadium plans. I don’t see, and never have seen, any journalist even question that though.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
On Twitter. But why we let these rancid, lying fuckers wander around the Etihad unchallenged is beyond me. I'm certainly not advocating violence but we should given them a "guard of dishonour" when they walk into the stadium in future. They should learn that words have consequences.
Click to expand...
I sacked twitter as it became a thoroughly depressing cesspit. How did your tweets go today?
 
The question I am asking myself now is were we right to not cooperate with the UEFA investigation? I can certainly understand the motivation to refusing to give evidence to a fabricated enquiry knowing you can always go to CAS and give them a good kicking. But we have allowed the narrative to be twisted to read we have “broken FFP rules” (which should say refused to cooperate with a fake FFP investigation). If we had shown the evidence to UEFA in the first place they couldn’t have punished us (even if they wanted to) and all this cr@p would never happened.
 
Mancity1980 said:
The question I am asking myself now is were we right to not cooperate with the UEFA investigation? I can certainly understand the motivation to refusing to give evidence to a fabricated enquiry knowing you can always go to CAS and give them a good kicking. But we have allowed the narrative to be twisted to read we have “broken FFP rules” (which should say refused to cooperate with a fake FFP investigation). If we had shown the evidence to UEFA in the first place they couldn’t have punished us (even if they wanted to) and all this cr@p would never happened.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an investigation it was a witch hunt, City were 100% right to keep their cards close to their chest if they thought they were innocent.
Remember this is an organisation that changed the rules to suit their own devious means, I wouldn't show them fcuk all and make them look silly ****s in court like we have done,
 
Kicking off about doctored emails won't play because we provided most of the emails and CAS found there wasn't a huge difference in content when compared with what we provided.

From what i can gather UEFA tried to use the emails to establish a pattern or template of behaviour that made us guilty. They are essentially a red herring - CAS stated that only evidence we actually did the things that UEFA alleged would be adequate to prove UEFA's case. City and UEFA agreed that the emails were sufficient to launch an investigation but CAS decided they wouldn't be appropriate as evidence. CAS even applied a lower standard of proof than City asked for. UEFA could present no evidence except an insinuation that the two payments Pearce mentioned re Etihad when shown in the accounts and demonstrated an attempt to hide owner investment. My guess is that this is the evidence that Tony Evans refers to. UEFA also tried to infer something dodgy was going on based on the order of those payments.

We pretty much lost on every arguement we presented except demonstrating that we hadn't hidden owner investment. We didn't even need to do that because UEFA didn't establish that we did.

The emails are only relevant in that they were grounds to open an investigation. The crux of the matter is that there is no evidence that a crime was even committed.

It is the equivalent of you saying you were going to kill your mate. The police arresting you for murder and you turning up at court with your mate who has not been murdered. Ah but the police say you had a knife and you could have used that to murder him. Sure but here is my mate not murdered and he's actually my alibi because on the night you said i murdered him we were at the pub together. Oh so you were with him on the night he was murdered! Guilty!! No because he's not murdered. Well can you tell us what you did with the murder weapon? Nope. See he won't help us. He guilty

For future reference i am available at short notice for CAS 3 or to workshop with Ken Loach to develop the movie
 
slick said:
It wasn't an investigation it was a witch hunt, City were 100% right to keep their cards close to their chest if they thought they were innocent.
Remember this is an organisation that changed the rules to suit their own devious means, I wouldn't show them fcuk all and make them look silly ****s in court like we have done,
Click to expand...
Great points mate, however the biased media is now able to run with statements like city failed FFP rules, which although it is a play on words they wouldn’t be able to do if we gave them the evidence in the first place.
 
nmc said:
Conn is probably being paid by someone maybe Qatar to Keep writing this nonsense. He’s obsessed.
Click to expand...
The only explanation that stands up to any meaningful objective scrutiny is that he’s developed an inveterate coke and brass addiction in recent years and has turned on the club he used to support in order to feed his habit. Also explains his Ineffectual and lightweight writing, as he’s usually clucking when he’s composing his pitiful articles.
 
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