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

[Bodicoteblue]

City looking to sign two players for a total of £60m reported as “City splurge” etc, United about to sign Sancho for £90m +, no one in the MSM bats an eyelid.

Have you learned nothing???
Raggy money, much like the dipper stuff, Is ‘organic’ and is possibly the most virtuous and clean dosh on the face of the earth (particularly in the dippers’ case as it arrives freshly laundered), and it all comes as a result of ‘doing it the right way’.
Our money, on the other hand, is filthy and comes in brown envelopes direct from the sheikh as anyone who has paid attention to the press over the last week or so would know.
Do try to keep up!!

 

[BlueAnorak]

I know Parry is on borrowed time for when he is exposed.

Suspect you are correct with regards Liverpool trying to put distance between themselves when UEFA's investigation into the IC leaks is concluded.

The chamber has been compromised and it won't be allowed to go unpunished.

If only this was true.

 

[Jumanji]

Just seen this video and oh God can someone post a Youtube comment and put this Liverpool fan in their place about how money works? God this is hard to watch.

They turn a profit on players and did things the right way LMAO.

 

[Big Pussy Bonpensiero]

Just seen this video and oh God can someone post a Youtube comment and put this Liverpool fan in their place about how money works? God this is hard to watch.

They turn a profit on players and did things the right way LMAO.

I lasted 1.5 seconds, I heard the accent and that was me out.

 

[Gazza]

I lasted 1.5 seconds, I heard the accent and that was me out.

1.5 seconds you stalwart. You just know they mentioned defence and offence somewhere in this video flavoured with sprinklings of jersey and soccer. It looks like more of a parody of the football fan than that Mitchell & Webb sketch -

 

[Big Pussy Bonpensiero]

1.5 seconds you stalwart. You just know they mentioned defence and offence somewhere in this video flavoured with sprinklings of jersey and soccer. It looks like more of a parody of the football fan than that Mitchell & Webb sketch -

Tbh my wife would say that’s good going for me :D I can’t be bothered with those fan channels, I’m just glad we seem to have very few of them (or else they’re just not popular because I don’t see them) I’ve come across a few vids of that esteemed Kompany lad, seems like a nice lad an all but it’s just not for me, best of luck to him though.

 

[dickie davies]

What is the date on this link as I can’t get it to load?

Premier League’s Big Three?????

Liverpool won their first PL title last month. Arsenal haven’t won a League title in 15 years and United’s last title was 7 years ago.

It makes no sense on any time period. You have to go back to 2013 to have United relevant and to 2005 for Arsenal. Even back in 2005-6, Liverpool had been without a title for well over ten years.

That report was from three years ago
I picked that report as it involved Arsenal but there is a more recent one with just Liverpool and utd owners/execs meeting in New York

 

[SilverFox2]

The ex head of UEFA and current head of FIFA is under investigation , wonder why. Yet we are the bad guys.

When a group of people is run by bad guys their culture sees things differently.
Rules are made to control members and prevent good guys entering. They make the rules so can control when to use them. Its only when they stray into the real worlds legal system that they are found out.

Al Capone was jailed for tax offences not running a protection racket.

 

[jaiguruKun]

Just seen this video and oh God can someone post a Youtube comment and put this Liverpool fan in their place about how money works? God this is hard to watch.

They turn a profit on players and did things the right way LMAO.

Please don't pollute the thread with this garbage!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?

 

[northendenton]

I lasted 1.5 seconds, I heard the accent and that was me out.

33 secs was plenty for me,lol

 

[domalino]

One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?

You have to argue every possible avenue. What if the club had lost on the core argument about disguising equity funding, and hadn't tried all these other possible arguments to stop the case? It would be negligent in the extreme.

As much as people on here like to talk about "irrefutable" and "as we always said we would", we only won the main argument 2-1. Which means that a very respectable, independent & impartial legal mind decided we were guilty, and if one of them could, then it's not out of the question we could have lost.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Barca, Real and Bayern wouldn't be able to join. Their fans would knock it on the head and the presidents/boards wouldn't be able to override them.

So immediately half the appeal and the main drivers go.

United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal don't need one, we already have revenues that keep the other big clubs awake at night and the TV audience isn't going anywhere.

Juventus, Milan and Inter would like it, but Inter are barely feasible and Milan just isn't close at the moment.

PSG have no need because they control TV revenues in France via BeIn, and as pretty much the only club in a City of 12.5m people they don't need any more money.


There's really no need for a European Super League when we have the Champions League.

Another negative that rarely gets an airing is that a European Super League is an attractive proposition when you are winning, or at least challenging. Imagine finishing in the bottom 5, three or four years running. I'm sure the fans of clubs, who have only ever known a top four spot in their respective leagues, would lose interest very quickly when their teams become cannon-fodder for those actually competing for the top spot.

However, utd becoming the G14 equivalent of Newcastle or Villa would be a sight to behold.

 

[Sky Blue]

I’ve come across a few vids of that esteemed Kompany lad, seems like a nice lad an all but it’s just not for me, best of luck to him though.

Not for me either.

 

[SilverFox2]

One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?

Perhaps the legally aware (Stefan I think) comment about even the most obvious case was only 70 percent certain applied so we aimed for 30 percent on the ones we lost and kept the one we won as a 70 percent banker?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?

You have to test all available avenues, and ultimately it strengthened our end position by having those elements challenged on record and shown that we got off on merit, not a technicality, but nonetheless it's due process to pursue all available avenues.

 

[BlueAnorak]

One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?

Colin, even with the slam dunk evidence we had, I reckon that CAS would have rulled against us 20% of the time because we're City and owned by an Arab. So best to try every avenue of escape.

 

[Brendan110_0]

You have to argue every possible avenue. What if the club had lost on the core argument about disguising equity funding, and hadn't tried all these other possible arguments to stop the case? It would be negligent in the extreme.

As much as people on here like to talk about "irrefutable" and "as we always said we would", we only won the main argument 2-1. Which means that a very respectable, independent & impartial legal mind decided we were guilty, and if one of them could, then it's not out of the question we could have lost.

Where is the evidence for a 2:1 victory? Don’t remember seeing a vote of this nature in the 93 page document. Is it just misinformation spread by press to sully the big win?

 

[BlueAnorak]

They have met up in the past and no one is certain what they discussed

The owners of the Premier League's big three - Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool - have met in New York, likely discussing the distribution of overseas television rights

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/arsenal-manchester-united-liverpool-owners-11417163

That was 3 years ago.

 

[domalino]

Where is the evidence for a 2:1 victory? Don’t remember seeing a vote of this nature in the 93 page document. Is it just misinformation spread by press to sully the big win?

The evidence is that the 93 page document repeatedly refers to a majority decision, which can only be 2-1. @projectriver said in his podcast that based on reading other decisions, if it wasn't a 2-1 vote they would have just said "The panel" not "The majority of the panel..."