I am sure the leaks were probably indirect. Someone on the investigating committee spoke to someone high up at one of our commercial rivals and they spoke to someone down their food chain (probably in their Comms team) who passed it on to the New York Times and the Times. No footprints will be left anywhere.Well that was hard going, managed to read the entire document.
There are worrying elements for both sides of the stand off?
City's supporting evidence has clearly had little bearing in terms of what the Football Leaks hacking had released into the public domain.
The CAS document is essentially a very expensive and detailed way of saying City have put the cart before the horse (which we pretty much knew, anyhow)
Worrying caveats include UEFA getting off the hook if they do suddenly unearth an individual within their ranks who leaked information, yet would in no way prohibit the AC's findings and sanctions?
CAS suggesting the press may have been speculating, rather the direct leaks from UEFA.
Yes. I see this as a big win for City. Although the appeal was lost on a technicality, CAS have made their displeasure with UEFA clear. If we are found guilty and appeal, duck the ton of bricks coming UEFA's way.It was a great tactical move by City's legal team. Essentially a pre-emptive strike. In fact Le Terme's abrasive comments, now publicised in the CAS documents, suggests UEFA have not even bothered to investigate the allegations of leaks from their own investigation. This compounds their predicament and is more legal ammunition for City.
It was a great tactical move by City's legal team. Essentially a pre-emptive strike. In fact Le Terme's abrasive comments, now publicised in the CAS documents, suggests UEFA have not even bothered to investigate the allegations of leaks from their own investigation. This compounds their predicament and is more legal ammunition for City.
Nick McGeehan here, folks, claiming that the 'CAS ... says [MCFC] approach "artificial and misleading" and "legally wrong"' when that text appears in para 51 of the CAS judgment clearly qualified by the staement that "The submissions of UEFA ... may be summarised as follows".
So, in representing UEFA's submissions as the impartial view of the CAS, is he simply mistaken, or being disingenuous, or being intellectually dishonest? I know what I think.
Ha! Tumbleweeds like you see in the westerns.
To be fair I think there is a difference betwen the way we handle legal issues and the way we manage our reputation as a club. We have suffered a lot of reputational damage over recent years and some of it could have been avoided. Our hands are tied on what we can say publically on the UEFA probe but there are a lot of other things we can do to improve the way we are covered in the media and perceived by other football fans.It's almost as if City do know what they're doing after all, given some of the posts on here that's going to come as a surprise to their detractors.
I now believe she is doing exactly as her paymasters are telling her to do. Don't go gung-ho off your own bat throwing shit at all and sundry. Leave it to the legal teams to decide what to do and when to do it.yes unfair .should be "constructive work" because it appears she or her department have done f*ck all , they welcome the low lifes that rubbish our football club to every home game and hand them tea and biscuits , she's absolutely toothless.
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, sections 109 and 112 of the CAS document could both be interpreted as CAS warning the AC to properly investigate what went on in the IC with the inference that failure to do so satisfactorily would impact any subsequent appeal to CAS by City if sanctions are imposed by the AC.Worrying caveats include UEFA getting off the hook if they do suddenly unearth an individual within their ranks who leaked information, yet would in no way prohibit the AC's findings and sanctions?
Although they have shunted that wanker Parry off into the sidings. I wonder why. New York based Liverpool fan, stories being leaked to a NY newspaper formally owned by Liverpool’s owner. Hmmmmm
And now here's Knickerless* responding rather gracelessly having had Rabin point out to him the error of his ways:
For someone who's always bragging about being a reseracher with a PhD, he sometimes comes across as ... well, not all that bright. Unless, of course, he's just a liar. Or, of course, a bit of both.
* - I'm not normally a one for these juvenile misspellings or corruptions of names in the interests of 'banter', but I'll make an exception for this contemptible twat.