I’m reading this and listening at the same time to the radio telling us about how Dortmund want around 100 mil from the scum for sancho in yet another example of ‘ragflation’ of the transfer market.Looks like wolves have just been done for exactly the same thing we were back in 2014.
Excessive losses, fine and squad reduction from uefa conpetitions for 20/21.
Only theres no media attention to it at all!
Shock
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...punished-UEFA-Financial-Fair-Play-breach.html
THIS EXACTLYPossibly that would be pre-judging UEFA's internal enquiry into the leaks issue. That wasn't an issue that CAS could rule on in this hearing and as Impeccable One says, they cannot sanction non-cooperation without a proven very good reason. Maybe we could appeal in the extremely unlikely event that UEFA's internal enquiry confirmed that there were leaks.
You'll be waiting for a long time then.I’m reading this and listening at the same time to the radio telling us about how Dortmund want around 100 mil from the scum for sancho in yet another example of ‘ragflation’ of the transfer market.
I’m also waiting for the mass hysteria from the media covering these appalling transgressions of all that is decent.
UEFA have the biggest carpet ever made ready to brush the enquiry under.Possibly that would be pre-judging UEFA's internal enquiry into the leaks issue. That wasn't an issue that CAS could rule on in this hearing and as Impeccable One says, they cannot sanction non-cooperation without a proven very good reason. Maybe we could appeal in the extremely unlikely event that UEFA's internal enquiry confirmed that there were leaks.
UEFA have the biggest carpet ever made ready to brush the enquiry under.
You're right and it's basically Catch 22 unfortunately.So true but I'm not sure CAS were prepared to put that in their Judgment
If the rules of a club you wanted to join said no women, Jews/Muslims/Catholics, people of colour, etc would you just shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's their business and the law doesn't come in it"? I don't think so.There is no 'law' about cooperation. In fact the law in most countries supports non-cooperation allowing the accused to remain silent.
However, the rules of playing in the CL state you must cooperate with an investigation. If the cooperation could be proven to have contributed to the breaking of a 'law'(criminal act) then you can claim to have reason for not abiding by the UEFA rule. But that's not the case here. Our reason(in its simplest form) was the potential exposure of confidential information. CAS determined that wasn't a good enough, or proven, reason. The club have accepted that decision.
Perhaps my best analogy is buying a season ticket to watch City. You agree to the rules. Get caught smoking in the ground and you could have your ticket cancelled without reimbursement. Smoking is a legal act, but you can't argue it was in your best interest to smoke, so you don't have to abide by that rule.
You said . . So why couldn't CAS say "Manchester City didn't cooperate but they genuinely believed, on good legal advice, that they were justified in doing so. This therefore mitigates the charge." - a defence of I was told not to do it, is not a defence. You have to be able to argue the underlying reason for that conclusion. Which City did, and CAS said wasn't good enough. Can you imagine how many crooks would bribe a lawyer to tell them to do something if the recommendation of a lawyer was sufficient justification legally ? :O
CAS said UEFA felt they had genuine grounds to open their investigation, even if their evidence was weak and insufficient to bring home their even, even to a lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt", so why didn't they similarly think we had genuine grounds to refuse to incriminate ourselves?
Maybe. Just seems inconsistent to me.Surely one follows the other. If UEFA had no genuine grounds, we'd have been right to refuse to co-operate. But since they CAS found that they did have grounds we were required to co-operate and they fined us for not doing so.
I was very surprised by the way the referee handled the game last night. I really thought he would be blowing up for every little time we went near a Real Madrid player. This was probably the best referee we have had for a European tie.
Trying to compare rules enforcing cooperation with LAWS of discrimination is very misguided.If the rules of a club you wanted to join said no women, Jews/Muslims/Catholics, people of colour, etc would you just shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's their business and the law doesn't come in it"? I don't think so.
Lawyers often advise their clients to say nothing and not cooperate. We couldn't have known at the time that UEFA investigated us in March 2019 that CAS in June 2020 would find the stolen emails admissible.
CAS said UEFA felt they had genuine grounds to open their investigation, even if their evidence was weak and insufficient to bring home their even, even to a lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt", so why didn't they similarly think we had genuine grounds to refuse to incriminate ourselves?
- Stefan said that Article 56 is so widely drafted that virtually anything that delayed an investigation could be deemed in breach.
- I don't know exactly what the legal grounds were for refusing to cooperate but I'd guess there was a genuine legal argument that the "criminally obtained" emails were not admissible.
- I very much doubt that firms ax reputable as Pinsent Mason or Freshfields would be open to a bung to lie their heads off
Shame City didn't ask your advice than isn't it, instead of relying on legal experts. These bloody experts.Trying to compare rules enforcing cooperation with LAWS of discrimination is very misguided.
Any rule that does not contradict a law is allowed as a term and condition of a legal contract.
We agreed to cooperate, we didn't, END OF.
He stopped about 5 of our attacks, in good positions, for nothing & conveniently 'missed' advantage opportunities, plus an elbow in the back, in the box.
I thought over the two legs the referee was much better than the shite I witness in the premier league.
The elbow in the back could have been given, but I usually judge it against if it had been the other way round, and i would have been sick if given against us.
I would rather these refs than Moss or Oliver getting the next round, at least they seem fit and not gasping for breath after 5 minutes.
Officials have pretty much knocked us out of the competition the last 3 years.
I agree , but not in this tie. I thought he was ok, and i can only judge against those past ties.
I wouldn't mind taking that one on through the tournament, rather than those you mention from previous seasons.
I agree, in the first half he was shockingly obne sided with only one mistake in our favour against 5 in RMs. 2nd half there were a number of occasions he could have carded, stopped us, given things the other way. I think he's just shit tbhHe stopped about 5 of our attacks, in good positions, for nothing & conveniently 'missed' advantage opportunities, plus an elbow in the back, in the box.
I never said they should have cooperated, why are you mis-quoting me ? My advice would have been the same as they did. Don't cooperate, accept a fine and win the challenge to the ban.Shame City didn't ask your advice than isn't it, instead of relying on legal experts. These bloody experts.