So having read this thread, listened to 93:20 etc etc, it seems there are a lot of layers to City's position that I have been trying to get straight in my head and wanted to put down is some kind of order. I think they are as follows but would welcome the thoughts of those better qualified than me:
1 UEFA leaked during a confidential process - however CAS have looked at this already and said they very probably did but City haven't proven they were damaged by it
2 The process was fundamentally flawed: scoping document produced after case had begun, case progressed without having read City's submission etc etc - again think we'd have to prove this damaged us?
3 We agreed a settlement covering the relevant period and you cannot now go back and reopen it - would obviously depend on the exact wording of the settlement agreement which none of us have seen
4 Your own 5 year rule means you can't reopen the case as it was opened 5 years after the settlement agreement but more than 5 after the year of the alleged offence - like Stefan on the 93:20 podcast says this seems so obvious you can't believe UEFA would have messed it up?
5 The evidence was hacked and is inadmissible - not sure this applies to UEFA processes and CAS as they are not courts?
6 The evidence is partial and here is the full email chain which shows there was no offence anyway - possible of course but we don't know what we or UEFA have here as evidence. The emails may have evidenced what was considered but not what actually happened?
7 The evidence is partial and actually the funds did not flow from our owner but from elsewhere in AD so there was no offence. This has the whole issue around what HH refers to in AD which others have already commented on.
8 The evidence is partial and the accountants of City, Etihad and indeed UEFA have signed off everything was above board so the source of funds for Etihad cannot be proven to be a problem
9 PB's point from earlier that the rules would need to be interpreted in light of current UEFA practice rather than what was in place at the time and so we would not have breached the current interpretation of FFP
10 The way other clubs have been treated for similar offences is fundamentally different
11 If this all fails, then off to a real Swiss court that FFP itself if illegal
Have I missed anything?