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

[asahartford1]

Interesting ? Surely that’s exactly what we were accused of and exactly was CAS found that we didn’t do....

If they have evidence of that, we are in big trouble, and the journos will be all over it.

 

[Paladin]

I've posted a couple of times about this but haven't seen any actual expert confirmation to back it up.

As I understand it the two Arbitrators consider the evidence and give their verdict on it, if they disagree then the President has the deciding vote. If both Arbitrators are in agreement then it's reported as a 'majority verdict'. I've no idea what they call it if the President has to overrule. The fact that 'majority verdict' appears to be the only term used suggests that there were no disagreements as surely they wouldn't both be at odds over every single decision.

Surely not. I agree that perhaps if both arbitrators agree, the president might not need to record his view. But if the president casts a deciding vote, then surely that will be recorded as a majority decision.

'Unanimous' is never used be report, but there are plenty of occasions that say 'the panel agreed' or 'the panel decided'. This to me, is where either the president didn't need to cast his vote (as above), or if it is the practice for him to vote, all three were in agreement.

 

[mad4city]

I particularly like Tony Evans claims that
- City selected the chairman, as if that was all there was to it and UEFA had no say
- UEFA ALLOWED City to introduce evidence into CAS proceedings. Or, just maybe CAS allowed it as it was their proceedings.

It's misrepresentation of the facts, as per.

It's a particularly revealing message too: 'How dare UEFA allow evidence [that effectively cleared City of wrongdoing]!?' they ask. Never once allowing for the fact that the purpose of the hearing was to establish the truth, rather than say a process of vilification.

 

[Gremlin]

If they have evidence of that, we are in big trouble, and the journos will be all over it.

Clearly they didn't have evidence of that beyond the emails and CAS said the emails didn't prove it on their own. Hence why the media are pushing the non-cooperation angle as this one is closed.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Clearly they didn't have evidence of that beyond the emails and CAS said the emails didn't prove it on their own. Hence why the media are pushing the non-cooperation angle as this one is closed.

And that City were only not found guilty by UEFA failings, and not entertaining the thought that there may be no guilt to find.

 

[jimharri]

I made a thread, amazingly it seems to have taken off and people like it. If you have a spare 3 mins, feel free to give it a read. Just my observations based on the facts of the 93 page report. No agenda bullshit

Is that you? It's a fantastic read bud. I doff my cap to you.

 

[asahartford1]

Clearly they didn't have evidence of that beyond the emails and CAS said the emails didn't prove it on their own. Hence why the media are pushing the non-cooperation angle as this one is closed.

Not sure whether ground hog day, or deja vu is most most appropriate )

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

 

[journolud]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

I do have better windows than next door and the window cleaner can fuck off. Erm, just saying

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

In a criminal court, which I realise this is not, any fine issued upon being found guilty of a charge is often related to the financial background of the accused. Ie, a football player would be fined a lot more money for a drink driving guilty verdict than Joe bloggs who earns the working or living wage.

 

[OB1]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

The fine seems completely OTT to me; although I didn't read much of the CAS document on the failing to co-operate. UEFA have been completely out of order on this whole thing. I fail to see how CAS can say with a straight face UEFA were not frivolous in bringing this case; although it was more vindictive than frivolous.

 

[iasad1]

More twisted nonsense from Conn-man.

I beg @Prestwich_Blue to debunk this.

 

[RobMCFC]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

Paragraph 335 starts by saying "However, considering i) the financial resources of MCFC.....", so clearly they are concerned by how much we spend on our windows!

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Has it? We have been careful not to break FFP rules, only been punished in 2014 when they changed the rules, we had an opportunity to cooperative and thus continue to not break them and we choose not to. If we had presented the evidence there and then UEFA would have no grounds to punish us (if for some stupid reason they still did we could still go to CAS and this time non-cooperation couldn't be thrown at us). As stunning as our victory has been it could have been more complete.

And we would still be out of CL while it dragged on and the damage would be done.
It’s not rocket science.

 

[crazyg]

I am also loving the fact that opposition fans seem to think despite the CAS ruling that our 'reputation is now in tatters' like we or any of our hierarchy give a horses arse what salty part time fans from Liverpool and Salford think of us.The matter is finished the club have had to undertake an exercise to disprove the mad theories of a group of clubs who are quite clearly s******g themselves about what is being built. Unlucky UEFA, Tebas, the G7 and those small clubs who decided to get involved (Burnley being my personal favourite, what the fcuk has it got to do with them LOL).

Please write out 100 times:
The rags do not play in Salford!

The borough they play in is part of the two word name of their ground.
(I'll give you a little clue. It's not the word Old.)


;-)

 

[BigJoe#1]

I'd pay towards a banner for that, as the club probably wouldn't take such a view. Get it on tele though!!

I think a big banner proclaiming our innocence using appropriate words, to be unfurled when we are allowed back in would be brilliant!

 

[Tricky_Trev]

Is that you? It's a fantastic read bud. I doff my cap to you.

Cheers pal.

 

[Ban-jani]

Trev having a pop at the BBC.

Go on lad.

 

[seafordblue]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

Maybe it's just CAS making a point to deter other clubs from following City's approach to the investigation.

I fully understand City's stance and I know I would have felt like taking the same approach if I was accused of something I knew I was totally innocent of on the basis of stolen emails. But let's face it, City refused to authenticate the leaked emails, provide the requested witnesses or confirm the person behind HHSM for the UEFA trial, but did for CAS.

So, could be CAS are putting out the message that in future clubs should cooperate more with their own sports investigatory procedures before taking it to CAS.

I know we all believe UEFA to be corrupt and probably would have found us guilty anyway, but I've been wondering what would have been the outcome of the UEFA AC case if we'd cooperated more back then..

 

[domalino]

I have to say, even for them, David Conn and Tony Evans' attempts to undermine CAS are pretty incredible.

They are both trying to advance the narrative that City "chose" the president of the Panel Rui Botica Santos, and that McDougall was compromised.

There is no way anyone who has read the award can come to that conclusion in good faith. To do so is not just to say City and UEFA are corrupt, not just to say McDougall and Botica Santos are impartial, but also that the entire organisation at CAS is corrupt because they vet every nomination.

On the same date, 3 April 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that pursuant to Article R54 CAS Code, following consultation with the Parties and the co-arbitrators, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appointed Mr Rui Botica Santos as President of the Panel

Article 54 is as follows -

If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel following nomination of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the parties shall only be deemed appointed after confirmation by the President of the Division. Before proceeding with such confirmation, the President of the Division shall ensure that the arbitrators comply with the requirements of Article R33.

Article 33 is as follows -

Every arbitrator shall be and remain impartial and independent of the parties and shall immediately disclose any circumstances which may affect her/his independence with respect to any of the parties.
Every arbitrator shall appear on the list drawn up by the ICAS in accordance with the Statutes which are part of this Code, shall have a good command of the language of the arbitration and shall be available as required to complete the arbitration expeditiously.


​

So what's actually happened is -

1) City suggest a president.

2) UEFA indicate they would accept that president.

3) The deputy president of Arbitration selects that president of the panel after consultation with both parties and both arbiters already selected and after confirming they are fully independent as per. Article 33.

​

There is no way you can honestly describe that process as City picking 2 judges.