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

bert38 said:
Nobody of importance will heed anything Der Spiegel now claim. Stolen, edited, cut and pasted old emails.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not being picked up in the British Press/social media as quickly as the original articles.

Frankly if der Spiegel had evidence that would have sunk us, they should have sent it to UEFA. They didn't, because they wanted UEFA to ask Rui Pinto for his help more than they wanted City to be in trouble.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
LOL. Didn't take long for the first knicker-wetter to appear.
Click to expand...

Do you reckon it's now time to get the lawyers involved with DS?
They have in their possession illegally obtained documents and emails of City's that will expressly state on them

" This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, copy, print or distribute this e-mail or attachments. If you have received it in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of the message and any attachments. The view of the author may not necessarily reflect those of the companies. The companies make no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments."

Plus DS deliberately altered and then printed the manipulated emails, so in fact "lied"
 
City_Sean said:
True, but it does make you wonder what other emails they have? Well aware that CAS found emails were doctored, but it does make you wonder whether it was wise for City to put up Pearce.
Click to expand...

1) der Spiegel have had those emails for years, and they didn't just look at a few, find their big stories in 2018 and then leave the rest alone. They will have dug through everything over the years.

2) City know what emails der Spiegel has, and what Pearce says in them, so it would be beyond amateurish to have him testify to something that could be proven false by emails already in the hands of a paper who would look through and find them. Given the supposed size of our legal team, someone must have prepared Pearce for his testimony thoroughly.
 
It is time for Manchester City to say something . It should not be only the fans who by the way are doing great job here and on twitter defending the club and its honor
 
domalino said:
1) der Spiegel have had those emails for years, and they didn't just look at a few, find their big stories in 2018 and then leave the rest alone. They will have dug through everything over the years.

2) City know what emails der Spiegel has, and what Pearce says in them, so it would be beyond amateurish to have him testify to something that could be proven false by emails already in the hands of a paper who would look through and find them. Given the supposed size of our legal team, someone must have prepared Pearce for his testimony thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate. Was just genuinely curious.
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
the same der spiegel who refused to supply this to UEFA at the time, or publish to support UEFA's case at the time, which says it all. Posturing trying to insinuate deceit by repeating accusations that have been disproved at CAS.
Click to expand...

They just repeat that UEFA should ask Pinto, rather than asking journalists to reveal source info.
At least it's consistent!
 
218. It is UEFA's case that Mr Pearce represented ADUG and that he made arrangements
with MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors on behalf of ADUG.

219. The Panel notes that Mr Pearce is a key witness in these proceedings and a key person
in the Leaked Emails. The Panel will therefore elaborate on his role in the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails and whether he indeed represented ADUG, as maintained by the Adjudicatory Chamber in the quote set out above.

220. Mr Pearce is not only a non-executive director of MCFC, but he was also the director
of the Executive Affairs Authority of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (the "EAA") and later
a special advisor to its chairman, Mr Khaldoon AI Mubarak, who is also the chairman
ofMCFC. The Panel is prepared to accept that Mr Pearce could "help in facilitating the
amounts due" to MCFC, as refened to in Leaked Email No. 3. The Panel also accepts
that Mr Pearce was close to HHSM and ADUG and may therefore have exercised a
certain influence over the Abu Dhabi-based sponsors ofMCFC and negotiate deals with
them, but the Panel finds that it has not been established that he was also authorised to
conclude contracts on behalf of HHSM and/or ADUG, i.e. it was by no means a given
that an email requesting Mr Pearce to act in a certain way would undoubtedly be
executed.

221. During his examination at the hearing, when asked the question "have you ever
arranged any payments to be made to Etihad in relation to its sponsorship obligations
of Manchester City Football Club?", Mr Pearce answered: "Absolutely, categorically
not". Mr Pearce did not strike the Panel as being an unreliable witness, and indeed
upholding UEFA's allegations would necessarily require a finding that Mr Pearce's
testimony was false. The Panel does not find such conclusion to be warranted in the
absence of evidence being presented by UEF A that Mr Pearce in fact represented
ADUG.

222. UEFA relies on Leaked Document No. 1 to establish that Mr Pearce was making
anangements with MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors and arranged alternative funds
for such companies from HHSM and/or ADUG and that this demonstrates a pattern,
which also involves Etihad.

223. Mr Pearce disputes UEFA's reading of Leaked Email No. 1 and testified that the
reference to "His Highness" in such email was not a reference to HHSM as alleged by
UEFA, but to His Highness Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahnoon AI Nahyan, the Chairman of
ADT A at the time.

224. The Panel has no reason to believe that Mr Pearce's testimony in this respect was
inaccurate and there is no evidence from UEFA suppmiing the allegation that the
reference to "His Highness" was in fact to HHSM. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it
must be concluded that UEFA failed to prove that Leaked Email No. 1 demonstrates
that Mr Pearce was entitled to conclude contracts at the behest of ADUG.

225. In any event, the Panel finds that a single email cannot establish a pattem whereby Mr
Pearce would consistently arrange altemative sources of funds from HHSM and/or
ADUG to contribute to the sponsorship obligations of MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based
sponsors. Leaked Email No. I was also sent 10 years ago and two years before the
implementation of the CLFFPR. So, even if true, at the time there would have been
nothing wrong with channelling equity funding through sponsors. There is no evidence
that similar arrangements were made after the implementation of the CLFFPR. The
Panel finds that insufficient evidence is available to conclude that Mr Pearce
represented ADUG vis-a-vis MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors with the aim of
disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions.

Pretty clear in context the whole line of questioning was around Pearce representing ADUG which the emails do not show in the slightest. He was merely performing his role which CAS already outlined in point 220.
 
Jazzman said:
In this article

https://www.spiegel.de/sport/cas-ur...-frage-a-9ce67020-5f9e-4c3b-b307-cc855f04c0c7

Spiegel comes up with a couple of more leaked emails in support of their view that City is guilty.

I am actually sad that the serious reply to a CAS process, in which it was found that the initial and doctored set of stolen emails did not comprise any proof whatsoever of any wrong doing by City, seems to be to show a few more stolen emails. These were obviously not compromising enough to be including in the first instance. The legal understanding of this once serious news magazine is problematic to say the least.

Basically Spiegel is implying here that City's witnesses in the CAS process have been lying, that the involved, multinational companies have been lying, and that the international auditors of these companies have been lying. Off course Sheik Mansour himself will have been lying as well. They also hint that the CAS judges themselves are dodgy.

There is off course no mentioning of the doctoring of the stolen emails they did, in order to throw a maximum negative light on City.

Der Spiegel is firmly a participant in the great fight over control and money in football, which is what FFP is really about. To be precise Der Spiegel sides with the Cartel of clubs who owns UEFA, and fight with all means to eliminate anyone who dares to go for a piece of the football business.
Click to expand...

I thought it implied that the CAS panel were a little cowardly in view of auditors/HH/CEOs, rather than dodgy - apart from the whole "CIty appointed 2 stuff"
 
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