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

If City's and Abu Dhabi's higher level execs have lied to CAS (& others) and there's evidence of this contained in their own emails & they know someone has access to all their emails - then FFS they deserve all they would get.

They can't be that stupid. Obv we dunno what other emails are going to be published, but surely they can't have provided evidence to CAS that can be contradicted by any emails.
 
projectriver said:
I don’t think that works for holding on to someone else’s document cache
Click to expand...
I don’t know about any other areas of law eg commercial, but in terms of data protection I’m afraid they can. From the ICO website on GDPR and DPA2018 exemptions: it applies to the UK but is likely to be broadly similar across Europe
Journalism, academia, art and literature
This exemption can apply if you process personal data for:
  • journalistic purposes;
  • academic purposes;
  • artistic purposes; or
  • literary purposes.
Together, these are known as the ‘special purposes’.

The exemption relieves you from your obligations regarding the GDPR’s provisions on:
  • all the principles, except the security and accountability principles;
  • the lawful bases;
  • the conditions for consent;
  • children’s consent;
  • the conditions for processing special categories of personal data and data about criminal convictions and offences;
  • processing not requiring identification;
  • the right to be informed;
  • all the other individual rights, except rights related to automated individual decision-making including profiling;
  • the communication of personal data breaches to individuals;
  • consultation with the ICO for high risk processing;
  • international transfers of personal data; and
  • cooperation and consistency between supervisory authorities.
But the exemption only applies to the extent that:
  • as controller for the processing of personal data, you reasonably believe that compliance with these provisions would be incompatible with the special purposes (this must be more than just an inconvenience);
  • the processing is being carried out with a view to the publication of some journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material; and
  • you reasonably believe that the publication of the material would be in the public interest, taking into account the special importance of the general public interest in freedom of expression, any specific public interest in the particular subject, and the potential to harm individuals.
We expect you to be able to explain why the exemption is required in each case, and how and by whom this was considered at the time. The ICO does not have to agree with your view – but we must be satisfied that you had a reasonable belief.
 
Ric said:
Hopefully the fact that City were happy for it to be made public suggests we’re not overly concerned about any other emails that may be out there.
Click to expand...
Surely in the background City have audited what DS have on us? They know they got 5.5 million emails / documents so surely we know based on what was presented by Uefa if there is a smoking gun in the background they held back. Based on Citys very fluffy response id hope we know there is nothing much in it.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
Call me cynical but I think they have intentionally held back some emails, to see what Simon Pearce testified. I don’t think they have just found them in the last day or two. Then leave it 2 days for the dust to settle a bit and then release it as it starts to calm down. Clear and organised.
Click to expand...
You can almost see the searches they made. - Search all emails from: Simon Pearce to: @etihad.com addresses containing £67.5m OR £8m and go from there. Searches made post the judgment.
 
Ric said:
Hopefully the fact that City were happy for it to be made public suggests we’re not overly concerned about any other emails that may be out there.
Click to expand...

Hand on heart, I've had my issues with the ethics of our ownership. But on this point, it's increasingly likely that this is case is as City have said time and time again: that the funding is legit, albeit legit in the dodgy world of sports funding, that the emails are out of context, and beyond a few breaches that we have been punished for already, the club have worked incredibly hard to meet FFP. We are one of the best run clubs in the world, with genuine sports business visionaries transforming everything off the pitch.
 
Ric said:
Hopefully the fact that City were happy for it to be made public suggests we’re not overly concerned about any other emails that may be out there.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is little more than Der Spiegel’s death rattle, a final tilt at a windmill after the CAS judgement was so withering BF about their heavily edited/cut and shut ‘Evidence’
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
Hand on heart, I've had my issues with the ethics of our ownership. But on this point, it's increasingly likely that this is case is as City have said time and time again: that the funding is legit, albeit legit in the dodgy world of sports funding, that the emails are out of context, and beyond a few breaches that we have been punished for already, the club have worked incredibly hard to meet FFP. We are one of the best run clubs in the world, with genuine sports business visionaries transforming everything off the pitch.
Click to expand...

This quote says it all for me..

"The club issued a statement in response to the new allegations, and requested that it be printed in full - which the newspaper refused to do."

We want them to print MORE not less. The context again is that they are suggesting something illegal or that we've lied. This time we're taking them head on and calling their bluff.
 
I would be genuinely flabbergasted if the club hadn’t reviewed every single email in the run up to and after the CAS hearing, especially after agreeing to make the details public.
 
Citizen Green said:
I would be genuinely flabbergasted if the club hadn’t reviewed every single email in the run up to and after the CAS hearing, especially after agreeing to make the details public.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Seems impossible we'd get caught out by evidence our own emails could readily provide
 
Manchester1894 said:
This quote says it all for me..

"The club issued a statement in response to the new allegations, and requested that it be printed in full - which the newspaper refused to do."

We want them to print MORE not less. The context again is that they are suggesting something illegal or that we've lied. This time we're taking them head on and calling their bluff.
Click to expand...

Where’s that statement from? I want to show it to that **** Harris
 
Manchester1894 said:
This quote says it all for me..

"The club issued a statement in response to the new allegations, and requested that it be printed in full - which the newspaper refused to do."

We want them to print MORE not less. The context again is that they are suggesting something illegal or that we've lied. This time we're taking them head on and calling their bluff.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think it's very frustrating for City's management, because I think a load of people want to City to be found guilty for all of the indulgences and excesses of contemporary football, and City, rightly, want to be discussing the actual specifics and charges.
 
The club knew the full extent of the hack and will no doubt have been through every email sent in relation to sponsorship in preparation for the CAS hearing.

I actually see it as a good sign that we responded to these reports so quickly. We've taken our time and a very measured approach in all our dealings with this, for us to come out so quickly to me indicates that we're prepared to publically call out Der Spiegel for a desperate attempt to throw more mud at the club.
 
fallowfield said:
If City's and Abu Dhabi's higher level execs have lied to CAS (& others) and there's evidence of this contained in their own emails & they know someone has access to all their emails - then FFS they deserve all they would get.

They can't be that stupid. Obv we dunno what other emails are going to be published, but surely they can't have provided evidence to CAS that can be contradicted by any emails.
Click to expand...
We should bloody know, we sent them. If there is anything else out there that proves certain people lied then fuck me we are as stupid as they come.
 
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