UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Why so? Just a question for our own Blue Moon legal eagles

amongst the Bluemoon brethren, nothing you say gets taken as your own opinion, it's all reckoned to be a snippet from someone else.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Very unlikely to get the ban injuncted.

I think it is also unlikely that witnesses were cross examined. Expert witnesses were called but Pearce is not an expert - he would be a City witness and I'd be very surprised if City volunteered Pearce. A very dangerous thing to do.

Why would it be a dangerous thing to do? If we are totally innocent like we insist, then surely it is comnon sense to put Pearce up. We have maintained the hacked emails were taken out of context. Surely if we are innocent, then put the man firward who written the emails and let him explain the context surrounding then.
The only reason I can think of not putting Pearce forward is if we are not being totally honest. If we have irrefutable evidence then surely that means we have nothing to hide.

 

[@BluePhil8]

From my limited understanding it will be very difficult to appeal to the Swiss Courts as any appeal is on a point of law only. I think our ability to suspend the ban would depend on what point we are appealing on.

With your information that we’re interested in Grealish makes me wonder are we preparing for a loss at CAS and he’s a KDB replacement. Could just be good contingency planning I suppose but a concern all the same.

Grealish for De Bruyne, good one mate. I’ve heard we’re signing Tim Krul as an Ederson replacement and we’re getting Frimpong to replace Rodri. I wonder how we’ll cope going back to Bony as our main striker?

 

[projectriver]

Why would it be a dangerous thing to do? If we are totally innocent like we insist, then surely it is comnon sense to put Pearce up. We have maintained the hacked emails were taken out of context. Surely if we are innocent, then put the man firward who written the emails and let him explain the context surrounding then.
The only reason I can think of not putting Pearce forward is if we are not being totally honest. If we have irrefutable evidence then surely that means we have nothing to hide.

I doubt there is a such thing as "irrefutable evidence" here - we are trying to prove a negative. The fact that UEFA has already refuted our evidence tells you it can be refuted. There is "strong" evidence, "powerful" evidence, "compelling" evidence, "documentary" evidence. Irrefutable has always been a silly word to use.

The reason it is dangerous to put up witnesses like Pearce is because barristers are good and Pearce could easily have been made to say something that gave the wrong impression. His emails demonstrate he is not the most disciplined or careful person. In addition, it is a very difficult risk to control. Given the stakes you don't want risk.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

From my limited understanding it will be very difficult to appeal to the Swiss Courts as any appeal is on a point of law only. I think our ability to suspend the ban would depend on what point we are appealing on.

With your information that we’re interested in Grealish makes me wonder are we preparing for a loss at CAS and he’s a KDB replacement. Could just be good contingency planning I suppose but a concern all the same.

Rag

 

[Keeper!]

From my limited understanding it will be very difficult to appeal to the Swiss Courts as any appeal is on a point of law only. I think our ability to suspend the ban would depend on what point we are appealing on.

With your information that we’re interested in Grealish makes me wonder are we preparing for a loss at CAS and he’s a KDB replacement. Could just be good contingency planning I suppose but a concern all the same.

The rumour about Grelish is to get back at United and drive up the price to them.

They have been doing the reverse for the last few years, always "in" for a player we are intending to sign.

 

[spiny]

I doubt there is a such thing as "irrefutable evidence" here - we are trying to prove a negative. The fact that UEFA has already refuted our evidence tells you it can be refuted. There is "strong" evidence, "powerful" evidence, "compelling" evidence, "documentary" evidence. Irrefutable has always been a silly word to use.

The reason it is dangerous to put up witnesses like Pearce is because barristers are good and Pearce could easily have been made to say something that gave the wrong impression. His emails demonstrate he is not the most disciplined or careful person. In addition, it is a very difficult risk to control. Given the stakes you don't want risk.

As quoted and expressed so many times on here, we do not know the details of the case or appeal. We can speculate on the issues and outcome but it serves no purpose.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

The rumour about Grelish is to get back at United and drive up the price to them.

They have been doing the reverse for the last few years, always "in" for a player we are intending to sign.[/QUOT]
He's a nited poster boy if ever I saw one..

 

[The Colonel]

My journo mate has been asked to write an article on City and what it means for football/UEFA now that city have had their appeal upheld and all punishments have been dropped. The deadline for this article in next Thursday. Now, he said it’s likely that they have someone else working on a different angle so I’m not getting too giddy, but I thought the deadline was interesting. Maybe announcement end of next week?

Remember CAS has said that it will inform the parties of the date that the decision will be provided. Maybe they have this now.

 

[M18CTID]

Think I’d have sooner put Stuart Pearce up as a witness instead of Simon Pearce