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

M18CTID said:
Yep. All they had to do was read the Open Skies document and it was all in there. Fucking idiots.
Click to expand...
I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.
 
I know each side chooses an arbitrator, what are the odds an arbitrator put forward would find against the side that selected them? Because how come UEFA’s chosen guy found in their favour on all points, even though the majority speak in such unequivocal terms about the lack of evidence especially on the Etihad charges? I thought they are still supposed to be impartial, so how does it actually work in reality? Is it a case of City/UEFA doing the research to find an arbitrator they believe will side with their interpretations or is there more to it than that?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.
Click to expand...

Could be way off on this but the way I see it is that 1) City couldn’t foresee all those years ago that someone would hack us and obtain our e-mails
2) We weren’t guilty of what we were being accused of and had proof of no wrongdoing to back that up, hence why we kept arguing the point. Plus wouldn’t it have looked a teeny bit suspicious if we’d changed tack in the wake of the investigation being opened and suddenly accepted that Etihad was a related party after all?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.
Click to expand...

whilst being a related party would have meant we couldn’t be accused of disguising owner investment, it would have left us open to a UEFA assessment of fair value.

also, give that CAS has ruled that Etihad, Aabar & Etisalat are NOT related parties, does that not point to the 2014 settlement agreement being flawed, in that UEFA deemed them to be related parties and reduced the income attributable from some of them?

all water under the bridge but would mean UEFA got it wrong AGAIN.
 
jimbo101 said:
whilst being a related party would have meant we couldn’t be accused of disguising owner investment, it would have left us open to a UEFA assessment of fair value.

also, give that CAS has ruled that Etihad, Aabar & Etisalat are NOT related parties, does that not point to the 2014 settlement agreement being flawed, in that UEFA deemed them to be related parties and reduced the income attributable from some of them?

all water under the bridge but would mean UEFA got it wrong AGAIN.
Click to expand...
It was generally accepted that Etihad was fair value. Not sure about Etisalat but the worst case scenario was they'd have reduced our income by a few million. I've no idea if they made any adjustment to our first FFP assessment to be honest. Made little difference if they did.

The whole related party issue would only be relevant if we were claiming they were and UEFA were arguing they weren't. Which we weren't.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.
Click to expand...
I wondered about this too. City's denial that they were related can only be explained by possible future sponsorship emanating fron AD which City do not want subjected to the fair value test. Maybe new sponsors or existing sponsors increasing their commitment.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It was generally accepted that Etihad was fair value. Not sure about Etisalat but the worst case scenario was they'd have reduced our income by a few million. I've no idea if they made any adjustment to our first FFP assessment to be honest. Made little difference if they did.

The whole related party issue would only be relevant if we were claiming they were and UEFA were arguing they weren't. Which we weren't.
Click to expand...

But if the whole ffp thing ended up in court, at another time, after yet another dirty trick, wouldn't we want to be claiming Etihad etc were not a related party & UEFA were not playing fair by insisting they were ?
 
ForzaMancini said:
I know each side chooses an arbitrator, what are the odds an arbitrator put forward would find against the side that selected them? Because how come UEFA’s chosen guy found in their favour on all points, even though the majority speak in such unequivocal terms about the lack of evidence especially on the Etihad charges? I thought they are still supposed to be impartial, so how does it actually work in reality? Is it a case of City/UEFA doing the research to find an arbitrator they believe will side with their interpretations or is there more to it than that?
Click to expand...
50-50 I'd say.

They're arbitrators, they're not picked to represent us or because we think they'll do us a favour. I'm still not convinced what this 'majority' wording means in actual fact.
 
nmc said:
I've attended a few press conferences at City and I’m always struck by how utterly childish the press pack are - they are like kids on a school trip. No respect, no decorum and utterly unprofessional pretty much all of them.
Click to expand...
It has long since been known as the "Street of Shame." Although the press office can now be be somebodies bedroom I suppose the rat pack persona is still rife.
 
jimbo101 said:
This is a really good piece of proper journalism in respect of the 2014 settlement agreement.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...-ffp-breaches-before-2014-uefa-deal-1.4149047
Click to expand...
Conn was actually quite good on this until relatively recently, when he seems to have gone rogue, like some Blade Runner replicant. He was just about the only one who had this information, which appears to have been well sourced. He actually added something to the background and understanding of the 2014 settlement. But there's a bit of innuendo in there, as there always seems to be with his City stories
 
Centurions said:
50-50 I'd say.

They're arbitrators, they're not picked to represent us or because we think they'll do us a favour. I'm still not convinced what this 'majority' wording means in actual fact.
Click to expand...

But it’s surely not a coincidence City’s selected arbitrator seemed to side with us on all points and the same for UEFA and their selection? I find it hard to believe both parties got lucky with their selection, must be more to it than that but I don’t know the exact details and can’t find anything about it online
 
projectriver said:
No the whole panel could concur. Notably the majority also applied to the comments (at least) on the cooperation charge. Strangely, few have mentioned that
Click to expand...

They also mostly rejected the points put forward by City on the first day...delightfully ignored by the conspiracy theorists
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Conn was actually quite good on this until relatively recently, when he seems to have gone rogue, like some Blade Runner replicant. He was just about the only one who had this information, which appears to have been well sourced. He actually added something to the background and understanding of the 2014 settlement. But there's a bit of innuendo in there, as there always seems to be with his City stories
Click to expand...
It seems impossible that you can go from penning something like this, which is balanced and makes no sensationalist claims, to being such a vitriolic snake.
 
How are CAS decisions made? Do the arbitrators discuss things out and come to a conclusion after a vote a bit like a jury?
 
As PB points out he was using information that was not general knowledge, can it be assumed that it was released by somebody close to City. It does not explain why the volte face in his recent musings.
 
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