I'm guessing here, but has it been proven in a court of law that they were obtained illegally? Obviously they were hacked, but surely until someone's convicted over it Der Spiegel could claim they're entitled to have them?What is the reason Der Spiegel have been allowed to keep hold of the emails which were obtained illegally? Didn't the police seize them?
Take these c*nts to court City, it's beyond the joke now, who do they think they are?
Not going to worry unduly about this. I spent far too much emotional energy on the CAS appeal to fret every time Der Spiegel publish an article! It would take something far more substantial than what we’ve seen today for UEFA to even consider re-opening this imo.
Take these c*nts to court City, it's beyond the joke now, who do they think they are?
I'm guessing here, but has it been proven in a court of law that they were obtained illegally? Obviously they were hacked, but surely until someone's convicted over it Der Spiegel could claim they're entitled to have them?
Apologies if I'm way off here.
You can argue that Pearce is saying he is paying £91m to Etihad to pay for City, but how this could be proved i don't know, and it can just as easily be argued that he could be directing the funding from one of the other AD institutes he is involved with as per the CAS release.
they ( Der Spiegel ) say they have loads of document on football and players and clubs ? over six thousand or so ?? but its only target is manchester city, funny that ? and why not other clubs so called dirty washing not being put out to dry by them ???
It's a smear campaign and I'm pleased to say that It's so on its last legs even we are getting bored by it!
The fundamental hypocrisy at the black, rotten heart of that bunch of hackers, grasses and thugs at Anfield is that they profess to be both plucky underdogs and ‘European royalty’.A lot of fans try and say that their club is the outsider who everyone hates. But in our case it’s true. Manchester City are the outsiders. We really are the anti establishment team and special.
Seems that's made him quite a few enemies, even within Der Spiegel.You have to question the editorial decision of letting someone with a proven history of inventing stories be the co-author of an article on football leaks.
I'm pretty certain what he said was that he had never arranged for money to be paid to Etihad on behalf of Sheikh Mansour which would then be paid to City (I.E. disguised owner investment). This just looks like an email between MCFC and Etihad regarding a miscalculation of the sponsorship payments.No need to get all tetchy
All I’m saying is he clearly states he has never organised sponsorship fees between the two parties and is then clearly contradicted by his own email.
We might not like it as City fans but that appears to imply he has lied to CAS, like it or not.
I think this fell into the 'G14's' lap and they took full advantage of it, rather than they invented it as some of the conspiracy theorists would have you believe.They not gonna stop.
G14 is going to come up with much worse plan I am afraid than blackmailing Uefa into attacking us with made up allegations as it has failed quite badly.
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:
Together, these are known as the ‘special purposes’.
- journalistic purposes;
- academic purposes;
- artistic purposes; or
- literary purposes.
The exemption relieves you from your obligations regarding the GDPR’s provisions on:
But the exemption only applies to the extent that:
- 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.
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.
- 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.
What is the reason Der Spiegel have been allowed to keep hold of the emails which were obtained illegally? Didn't the police seize them?
Take these c*nts to court City, it's beyond the joke now, who do they think they are?
I'm guessing here, but has it been proven in a court of law that they were obtained illegally? Obviously they were hacked, but surely until someone's convicted over it Der Spiegel could claim they're entitled to have them?
Apologies if I'm way off here.