You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
WestGorton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 10,437
It was always can unsubstantiated slur to derail City. The whole episode should galvanise anybody becoming disenfranchised because they believe we made it. They loved us being shit. Be a winner and back the club and stop blubbering about playing Wycombe as if that was accepted.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The time barred stuff was simply 2 of the earlier years of the Etihad sponsorship and they found no evidence of any wrongdoing regarding funding in the years that weren't time-barred.I know it's Nick Harris but didn't CAS very specifically say
1) UEFA didn't prove the time barred stuff regardless of it being time barred or not.
2) The obstruction did not lead to us not being found guilty (ie it was irrelevant and this is backed up by the fact we supplied everything asked for the de novo CAS review of the case)?
Therefore it's a pretty safe bet that there was nothing in those earlier years that might have incriminated us.
bluemonkey71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 6,967
Can someone have a pint of piss ready for Mr Harris the next time he dares to come to the ground
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
I know it's Nick Harris but didn't CAS very specifically say
1) UEFA didn't prove the time barred stuff regardless of it being time barred or not.
2) The obstruction did not lead to us not being found guilty (ie it was irrelevant and this is backed up by the fact we supplied everything asked for the de novo CAS review of the case)?
CAS actually said that if City had provided the evidence to UEFA that was presented at the CAS hearing, that UEFA may themselves have reached the same not proven decision
lust overlord
Well-Known Member
Quick question regarding the CAS panel. Did City choose a panel member and then suggest the chairman or, as I thought, was the chairman and the City nominee the same person and, as is the norm, both sides picked one each?
The two sides agree to pick the chairman.
City as the defendant selected him and Uefa agreed with the selection
If they didn't agree,cas would have chosen the chairman.
TheCentralScrutinizer
Well-Known Member
shouldn't be too hard on him...he lost his marbles a few years ago...this should send him back over the edge....Rob Harris will be next.....Can someone have a pint of piss ready for Mr Harris the next time he dares to come to the ground
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,814
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I know it's Nick Harris but didn't CAS very specifically say
1) UEFA didn't prove the time barred stuff regardless of it being time barred or not.
2) The obstruction did not lead to us not being found guilty (ie it was irrelevant and this is backed up by the fact we supplied everything asked for the de novo CAS review of the case)?
Not many non-City supporters will take the trouble to read the CAS report thoroughly. They will simply swallow the shit that twats like Harris spout , and just believe it to be the truth.
Sorry to sound thick but, to be clear, City didn't effectively get to select 2 members of the panel, just who, out of the 3 would be chairman?The two sides agree to pick the chairman.
City as the defendant selected him and Uefa agreed with the selection
If they didn't agree,cas would have chosen the chairman.