Sorry i'm dumb. Does this mean even though City were released, having paid the fine or whatever the obligations were, City believe that UEFA are not released from the settlement with the (alleged) no investigating of reporting periods? To clarify, i'm really dumb..City fulfilled the obligations of the settlement agreement so are therefore released.
I'm having one on my dick, 'Manchester City FC, defeaters of the Union of
European Football Associations 2020.'
Why?
Genuine question btw. It's my interpretation, and your interpretation, we are both making assumptions on loose observations of what is available in the public realm, so in no way am i looking to argue it, just curious what you base that on.
The Cas procedure states the paries are notified, once the decision is reached, ahead of the verdict being written up and made public. It doesn't say when that is or should be. There is then another period of 3 months where they pull together the full justification, and that period is stated as 3 months.
So in reality, both parties (or should i say any two parties) Could theoretically know a week after a hearing, if that is when Cas reach a decision. Not saying that is what may have happened, just that no timeframe is impossible.
Imho, Cas wouldn't have defined a date for public announcement, without having made a decision. And if they notify parties once they make a decision, ahead of writing up the verdict, it is entirely plausible the club have known since we have known the date. After all, that is what, leas than 2 full weeks before the public announcement? or in fact bang on one week before the supposed original planned date of the 10th. That isn't actually that far in advance, imho, i dount cas judges write up the verdict in less than a week.
Which, as i say, councides with pep's positive comments, and other reported injection of optimism throughout the club that TH and a few with links have reported.
Add to that Uefa asking the announcement to be delayed, heck even coupled with a silence from Uefa, which, as crudely cynical as it sounds, to me there is a nugget of truth behind that throwaway joke.
As i say, that is what i believe, at this point. Largely, because i really want to, and particularly, because it does make sone sebse, and does add up to an extent (or coincide quite neatly).
Oh great the one year option hasn't been mentioned for 200 posts
I know a guy who just calls them dicks. Some people get all the bad luck don't they.I worked with a Newfie that called them baby dicks. Put me right off.
I think there will be a feature on how winning the CL then the PL is a world class achievement whilst doing it the other way round is fairly old school and not that difficult. Then there will be a replay of the ‘miracle of Istanbul’, followed by Barca being knocked out last season.I’m surprised BT are showing it considering City are the only English team left in it.
My reasoning was when Chelsea won it in 2012 spurs didn’t qualify despite finishing fourth as Chelsea finished outside top 4.
In the appeal document you posted a while back, there was a section where city specifically mentioned something along the lines of City being let go of the settlement that was agreed for no investigating of periods 2014-15/2015-2016. Do you think this means that UEFA have released us from the settlement somehow or that they have gone against the settlement criteria and that's *one of* the things we are challenging? If they have released us from the settlement, it questions why we would agree to such a settlement in the first place if it could be dropped so easily, maybe our defence was not that good OR we have something on UEFA's behaviour that both agreed to keep under wraps.