mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
Some random thoughts about this scenario:
1) UEFA seem to be basing their case on the Der Spiegal cache of emails. Have they seen these emails or are they solely going off the newspaper reports? What attempts have they made to be sure that there are no emails not known to them? We are told this is a huge data dump - what attempts have been made to ensure they have viewed every email with relevant detail? How have they done this analysis? IF they have used the actual data dump to gather evidence have city also been provided with the same data dump?
2) I've assumed they haven't actually had access to the data dump (although it would be fun if City did have the entire cache of football leaks emails) because Der Spiegal were excited yesterday that it was their research that got us to this point. What steps have UEFA made to verify the veracity and honesty of that research? What steps have they taken to ensure the snippets of emails presented in the paper are accurate particularly when placed back into the context from which they have been ripped? What alternative understandings of the presented fragments of text did they explore and what criteria did they use to dismiss those?
3) The CAS ruling on the Galatasary case commented that Galatasary leaned too heavily on newspaper reports in defence of their case. Are UEFA basing the entirety of their case on newspaper reports?
4) If I remember correctly when we failed FFP the next few years of our accounts were under extra scrutiny? (I may be mistaken about this). What did that scrutiny involve (if it happened) and who at UEFA signed off on them? Does this form part of the case that we misled UEFA?
5) Why did it take so long for the AC to inform City of their findings? How were we informed? Have we been given more detail about what we are being punished for than UEFA have released?
6) if my understanding is correct CAS can only judge based on policies and procedures and can offer no real comment on the evidence collected by UEFA except to say if it was collected effectively or not. Therefore CAS can only acquit us based on technicalities. Will this be enough for City or will they make further attempts to establish their innocence either by explaining more clearly the context of the emails we dispute and/or legal action.
1) UEFA seem to be basing their case on the Der Spiegal cache of emails. Have they seen these emails or are they solely going off the newspaper reports? What attempts have they made to be sure that there are no emails not known to them? We are told this is a huge data dump - what attempts have been made to ensure they have viewed every email with relevant detail? How have they done this analysis? IF they have used the actual data dump to gather evidence have city also been provided with the same data dump?
2) I've assumed they haven't actually had access to the data dump (although it would be fun if City did have the entire cache of football leaks emails) because Der Spiegal were excited yesterday that it was their research that got us to this point. What steps have UEFA made to verify the veracity and honesty of that research? What steps have they taken to ensure the snippets of emails presented in the paper are accurate particularly when placed back into the context from which they have been ripped? What alternative understandings of the presented fragments of text did they explore and what criteria did they use to dismiss those?
3) The CAS ruling on the Galatasary case commented that Galatasary leaned too heavily on newspaper reports in defence of their case. Are UEFA basing the entirety of their case on newspaper reports?
4) If I remember correctly when we failed FFP the next few years of our accounts were under extra scrutiny? (I may be mistaken about this). What did that scrutiny involve (if it happened) and who at UEFA signed off on them? Does this form part of the case that we misled UEFA?
5) Why did it take so long for the AC to inform City of their findings? How were we informed? Have we been given more detail about what we are being punished for than UEFA have released?
6) if my understanding is correct CAS can only judge based on policies and procedures and can offer no real comment on the evidence collected by UEFA except to say if it was collected effectively or not. Therefore CAS can only acquit us based on technicalities. Will this be enough for City or will they make further attempts to establish their innocence either by explaining more clearly the context of the emails we dispute and/or legal action.