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

[Vic]

And there you have it in a nutshell "we focused on the criticism of Manchester City"

Why not focus the the positive that City won hands down. Why didnt the BBC look into why City didnt thinking was not safe to go through UEFA an organisation that was leaking like a sieve, an organisation that had leaked the 2 yr ban before the hearing. Yes City did get a 9 million euro fine. But that's not the main story. It was a cheap shot to show City again in a negative light again by the 'independent' ( lolol ) BBC

I assume we all got the same response. This bit is the killer:
"When the CAS verdict was released the previous week we had already reported prominently that Manchester City had overturned their ban and had been cleared of “disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306

"Therefore in our initial version of the story on the release of the full report we focused on the criticism of Manchester City from CAS that we judged key new information."

The story was the reasons for both bits of the verdict - it was all new information. They chose "blatant disregard" rather than "no evidence".

 

[MillionMilesAway]

"allegations of deceit, concealment and false accounting" These are highly serious and damaging charges.

UEFA appear to have got off lightly judging by your comment, had the charges been brought through the High Court in England and the decision still found in favour of City.

Would there be any possible actions or sanctions beyond a reprimand of their QC?

It's not a law court as such, so probably outside anybody's jurisdiction?

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

Good luck I have tried complaining about the bbc reporting on City but gave up after their reply they didnt respond after that ! I wrote to my MP about Merseyside police closing the enquiry into LFC coach welcome and I think the reply came from the home office telling me to make a complaint to Merseyside Police lol

Haha good work! The way I see it they can ignore me but at least it gives someone there something to do and it makes me feel better to call it out!

 

[JRockBlues]

I've just had a response from BBC RE a complaint I put in over their coverage of the CAS report. For anyone interested I've included it below:

I don't find their answers satisfactory. They've deliberately picked out parts to reflect badly on City and conveniently ignored that one of football's governing body absurd their power to take action against one of its members. That said I'm glad I ranted at them, it made me feel better if nothing else.

Thank you for getting in touch about our reporting on Manchester City’s Uefa FFP case.

As a result of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) 93-page legal document being released to the media with no embargo to allow preparation, the news story was a naturally developing one over the first couple of hours as the full details were fully digested. The piece underwent a number of changes in that period. Importantly none of the alterations were as a result of factual errors – it was the process of our journalists developing the initial take into the full story.

By 9.00pm the story was finalised with headline and copy referencing the fact that the report had found there was 'no conclusive evidence” Manchester City “disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship'.

The criticism of Manchester City by CAS was an important part of the story. Manchester City were said to have committed a “severe breach” by showing a “blatant disregard” to UEFA, European football’s governing body. The panel said that Manchester City were to be “seriously reproached” for obstructing UEFA’s investigation. The 10m Euros fine, albeit reduced from 30m, remains one of the biggest in football history.

When the CAS verdict was released the previous week we had already reported prominently that Manchester City had overturned their ban and had been cleared of “disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306

Therefore in our initial version of the story on the release of the full report we focused on the criticism of Manchester City from CAS that we judged key new information. We included high up in the story that “the panel cannot reach the conclusion that disguised funding was paid to City” and in subsequent versions built up that part of the story with more information.

Reporting on a complex and evolving story like this required our journalists to digest a high volume of detail to produce an accurate and impartial account of the case.

Thank you again for your feedback, which has been shared with the relevant teams.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team

Came here to post the same thing. Word for word response so it's a c&p job to all complainants I expect. Wasn't too hopeful of getting a meaningful response but at the time just couldn't let it slide. Not worth the effort in pursuing these particular raggies anymore imo.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Good question but the media don't "investigate" anything any more. They write what agents, players, managers, club PR teams and gambling interests tell them to write. Plus we've clearly seen how far they're in bed with the cartel clubs.

Our mediah became a 'Hacks for sale' organisation quite a while ago. There is only one journalist out there with any credibility and that's Martin Samuel. All the rest have been bought or at least willingly conscripted into someone's bot army.

 

[come-on-barney]

I've just had a response from BBC RE a complaint I put in over their coverage of the CAS report. For anyone interested I've included it below:

I don't find their answers satisfactory. They've deliberately picked out parts to reflect badly on City and conveniently ignored that one of football's governing body absurd their power to take action against one of its members. That said I'm glad I ranted at them, it made me feel better if nothing else.

Thank you for getting in touch about our reporting on Manchester City’s Uefa FFP case.

As a result of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) 93-page legal document being released to the media with no embargo to allow preparation, the news story was a naturally developing one over the first couple of hours as the full details were fully digested. The piece underwent a number of changes in that period. Importantly none of the alterations were as a result of factual errors – it was the process of our journalists developing the initial take into the full story.

By 9.00pm the story was finalised with headline and copy referencing the fact that the report had found there was 'no conclusive evidence” Manchester City “disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship'.

The criticism of Manchester City by CAS was an important part of the story. Manchester City were said to have committed a “severe breach” by showing a “blatant disregard” to UEFA, European football’s governing body. The panel said that Manchester City were to be “seriously reproached” for obstructing UEFA’s investigation. The 10m Euros fine, albeit reduced from 30m, remains one of the biggest in football history.

When the CAS verdict was released the previous week we had already reported prominently that Manchester City had overturned their ban and had been cleared of “disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306

Therefore in our initial version of the story on the release of the full report we focused on the criticism of Manchester City from CAS that we judged key new information. We included high up in the story that “the panel cannot reach the conclusion that disguised funding was paid to City” and in subsequent versions built up that part of the story with more information.

Reporting on a complex and evolving story like this required our journalists to digest a high volume of detail to produce an accurate and impartial account of the case.

Thank you again for your feedback, which has been shared with the relevant teams.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team

Same reply, standard response did not cover any of the points made.

 

[fulabeer]

Same reply, standard response did not cover any of the points made.

They are actually trying to say that because they didn't have time to read and digest the full report, that is ok to go ahead and publish anything they want, no matter how misleading.
What's wrong with the BBC actually waiting until they do fully understand things? They are a paid for service, therefore derive no income from "clicks" and being first.
Again City not cooperating with UEFA wasn't the the revelation from the full report (that was already known weeks earlier), edited/out of date and joined emails was. No reporting of City's ongoing complaint about leaks during the investigation might have gone some way of explaining why City didn't fully cooperate.
They are supposed to be the beacon for British Standards of broadcasting and reporting. As it is, i cannot see how they are any different to the Fanzine (so called) reporters, currently lowering standards...

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

From - spit - Empire Of The Kop:

“What’s interesting is it sounds like Moore’s exit is not necessarily a mutual decision, but one from his bosses in Boston to not extend his contract.".

Make of that what you will...

Perhaps he has been blamed for the leaks strategy which played into our hands at CAS

 

[Jacko1956]

Came here to post the same thing. Word for word response so it's a c&p job to all complainants I expect. Wasn't too hopeful of getting a meaningful response but at the time just couldn't let it slide. Not worth the effort in pursuing these particular raggies anymore imo.

As with me a bog standard cop out reply as expected . Load of bollocks they knew exactly what they were doing the first post was designed to further trash our reputation knowing that would be thev only one the haters would read. If they knew it was an evolving story why not wait till the complete details were know ! Not even worth trying to reply as theve played the covid 19 card on the website. I doubt they read more than one or two complaints and once they got the just complied this crock of shit. Is anybody going to try to reply?

 

[BlueRockape]

They are actually trying to say that because they didn't have time to read and digest the full report, that is ok to go ahead and publish anything they want, no matter how misleading.
What's wrong with the BBC actually waiting until they do fully understand things? They are a paid for service, therefore derive no income from "clicks" and being first.
Again City not cooperating with UEFA wasn't the the revelation from the full report (that was already known weeks earlier), edited/out of date and joined emails was. No reporting of City's ongoing complaint about leaks during the investigation might have gone some way of explaining why City didn't fully cooperate.
They are supposed to be the beacon for British Standards of broadcasting and reporting. As it is, i cannot see how they are any different to the Fanzine (so called) reporters, currently lowering standards...

Glad I pay the cûnts fuckall

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

Same reply, standard response did not cover any of the points made.

Yeah that doesn't surprise me, its very general. Won't stop me sending them a follow up though!

 

[Impeccable One]

"It is understood that City are now looking at potential legal options against Der Spiegel."

1940's case law ..... BOMB THE BASTARDS !

 

[mccity]

Just in case this hasn't been posted? You may find this interesting PB & others. You have to register to read the article.

This article is written by Björn Hessert, University of Zurich. By way of disclosure, Björn works as a research assistant for Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas, who was one of the three CAS arbitrators in the Manchester City FC v UEFA proceedings. Björn would like to stress that he himself was not involved in any capacity in the proceedings and that all of the opinions expressed herein are entirely his own. He would further like to emphasise that Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas neither did provide assistance nor share any inside information.

The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) of 13 July 2020 in Manchester City FC v. Union of European Football Association (UEFA)[1] has caused a sporting earthquake in European and international football. The repercussions of this decision are not yet foreseeable and may lead to amendments of the often criticised[2] and arguably unenforceable[3] Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. This is for others to decide in the future. Apart from any FFP-related issues, the decision taken by the majority of the CAS panel of arbitrators (CAS panel) raises interesting questions in relation to the duty of athletes and clubs to cooperate with sports governing bodies, which is the subject of this contribution. This article recaps the decision and then examines two such questions, namely:

• The legal relationship between procedural request for disclosure and the duty to cooperate; and

• The treatment of time-barred information.

Get access to this article and all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport

https://www.lawinsport.com/sports/f...-the-man-city-v-uefa-decision?category_id=153

Is there a summary of this article anywhere?

 

[kippax4ever]

I've just had a response from BBC RE a complaint I put in over their coverage of the CAS report. For anyone interested I've included it below:

I don't find their answers satisfactory. They've deliberately picked out parts to reflect badly on City and conveniently ignored that one of football's governing body absurd their power to take action against one of its members. That said I'm glad I ranted at them, it made me feel better if nothing else.

Thank you for getting in touch about our reporting on Manchester City’s Uefa FFP case.

As a result of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) 93-page legal document being released to the media with no embargo to allow preparation, the news story was a naturally developing one over the first couple of hours as the full details were fully digested. The piece underwent a number of changes in that period. Importantly none of the alterations were as a result of factual errors – it was the process of our journalists developing the initial take into the full story.

By 9.00pm the story was finalised with headline and copy referencing the fact that the report had found there was 'no conclusive evidence” Manchester City “disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship'.

The criticism of Manchester City by CAS was an important part of the story. Manchester City were said to have committed a “severe breach” by showing a “blatant disregard” to UEFA, European football’s governing body. The panel said that Manchester City were to be “seriously reproached” for obstructing UEFA’s investigation. The 10m Euros fine, albeit reduced from 30m, remains one of the biggest in football history.

When the CAS verdict was released the previous week we had already reported prominently that Manchester City had overturned their ban and had been cleared of “disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306

Therefore in our initial version of the story on the release of the full report we focused on the criticism of Manchester City from CAS that we judged key new information. We included high up in the story that “the panel cannot reach the conclusion that disguised funding was paid to City” and in subsequent versions built up that part of the story with more information.

Reporting on a complex and evolving story like this required our journalists to digest a high volume of detail to produce an accurate and impartial account of the case.

Thank you again for your feedback, which has been shared with the relevant teams.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team

What is it with the BBC,
They post shit on their website(a wankstain piece)
And no c.nts name,who wrote it,
Then you make a complaint & you get a reply & no c.nt signs that either.
I only got o- levels, but these c.nts aren't even to that level,
And people called the daily Sport,ffs.

 

[Bovril]

If it's for breaches of data protection by a German paper, you'd start in the German courts. If you don't like the verdict because it doesn't follow the EU directives, then you can take it to the European Court of Justice. Oh wait....

This isn't the Brexit thread, save your bile for it.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Yeah, you're spot on mate. I will be raising that point in my reply. We might not be able to change the narrative, but we don't have to accept it!

It might be useful to raise the question around how would they have reported it if it was Penalty United or the Bin Dippers who had been exonerated?

I think we know the answer to that one!

 

[Centurions]

From - spit - Empire Of The Kop:

“What’s interesting is it sounds like Moore’s exit is not necessarily a mutual decision, but one from his bosses in Boston to not extend his contract.".

Make of that what you will...

Has it ever been reported whether Rick Parry is still working for UEFA now that he's in charge of the EFL?

 

[bennyboy]

Came here to post the same thing. Word for word response so it's a c&p job to all complainants I expect. Wasn't too hopeful of getting a meaningful response but at the time just couldn't let it slide. Not worth the effort in pursuing these particular raggies anymore imo.

Same here.
Cannot reply to their nonsense answer.

 

[kippax4ever]

I've just had a response from BBC RE a complaint I put in over their coverage of the CAS report. For anyone interested I've included it below:

I don't find their answers satisfactory. They've deliberately picked out parts to reflect badly on City and conveniently ignored that one of football's governing body absurd their power to take action against one of its members. That said I'm glad I ranted at them, it made me feel better if nothing else.

Thank you for getting in touch about our reporting on Manchester City’s Uefa FFP case.

As a result of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) 93-page legal document being released to the media with no embargo to allow preparation, the news story was a naturally developing one over the first couple of hours as the full details were fully digested. The piece underwent a number of changes in that period. Importantly none of the alterations were as a result of factual errors – it was the process of our journalists developing the initial take into the full story.

By 9.00pm the story was finalised with headline and copy referencing the fact that the report had found there was 'no conclusive evidence” Manchester City “disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship'.

The criticism of Manchester City by CAS was an important part of the story. Manchester City were said to have committed a “severe breach” by showing a “blatant disregard” to UEFA, European football’s governing body. The panel said that Manchester City were to be “seriously reproached” for obstructing UEFA’s investigation. The 10m Euros fine, albeit reduced from 30m, remains one of the biggest in football history.

When the CAS verdict was released the previous week we had already reported prominently that Manchester City had overturned their ban and had been cleared of “disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306

Therefore in our initial version of the story on the release of the full report we focused on the criticism of Manchester City from CAS that we judged key new information. We included high up in the story that “the panel cannot reach the conclusion that disguised funding was paid to City” and in subsequent versions built up that part of the story with more information.

Reporting on a complex and evolving story like this required our journalists to digest a high volume of detail to produce an accurate and impartial account of the case.

Thank you again for your feedback, which has been shared with the relevant teams.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team

Reporting on a complex and evolving story like this required our journalists to digest a high volume of detail to produce an accurate and impartial account of the case.

Journalists **

 

[BlueRockape]

1940's case law ..... BOMB THE BASTARDS !

Where's Mr Harris when you need him