CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[Metalartin]

The first rule of selling is to be likeable. If people like you, they will buy off you. He doesn’t strike me as a good salesman at all.

That's actually a good point, his default setting is smug bell-end.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

He said we cheated because we didn’t get done because of the time length

Ah so its City's fault that UEFA submitted "No Evidence" to prove any allegations and/or implied allegations that were outside the Statute of Limitations for the court to consider.

More commonly known as mudslinging and a fucking waste of time.

I believe Jordan used to wank dogs off on Sunday afternoons in 2009 for a bit of fun, I have no evidence and if I did it would be outside the statute of limitations.

The Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58)[1] is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applicable only to England and Wales. It is a statute of limitations which provides timescales within which action may be taken (by issuing a claim form) for breaches of the law. For example, it provides that breaches of an ordinary contract are actionable for six years after the event[2] whereas breaches of a deed are actionable for twelve years after the event.[3] In most cases, after the expiry of the time periods specified in the Act the remedies available for breaches are extinguished and no action may be taken in the courts in respect of those breaches.

PS I'm not sure this law enables him to wank dogs off with no penalty in Scotland.

Perhaps if we were to have a radio discussion on this very allegation every day for a month it would be generally accepted that Jordan is in fact - a dog wanker! Hey presto - how a lie becomes the accepted truth.

 

[Corky]

Ah so its City's fault that UEFA submitted "No Evidence" to prove any allegations and/or implied allegations that were outside the Statute of Limitations for the court to consider.

More commonly known as mudslinging and a fucking waste of time.

I believe Jordan used to wank dogs off on Sunday afternoons in 2009 for a bit of fun, I have no evidence and if I did it would be outside the statute of limitations.

The Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58)[1] is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applicable only to England and Wales. It is a statute of limitations which provides timescales within which action may be taken (by issuing a claim form) for breaches of the law. For example, it provides that breaches of an ordinary contract are actionable for six years after the event[2] whereas breaches of a deed are actionable for twelve years after the event.[3] In most cases, after the expiry of the time periods specified in the Act the remedies available for breaches are extinguished and no action may be taken in the courts in respect of those breaches.

PS I'm not sure this law enables him to wank dogs off with no penalty in Scotland.

It was nothing to do with that act, it was UEFAs own rules with a 5 year time bar.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

It was nothing to do with that act, it was UEFAs own rules with a 5 year time bar.

Yes I know
But that element of FFPR exists to codify the existence of Statutes of Limitation into that particular set of rules.
If it wasn't in there the legal team would use whichever the European equivalent is to rule it out of time - i'm presuming 5 years is the European standard length of time for Civil cases of alleged financial impropriety.

I used the Limitation Act 1980 to outline my example not prove that was used in the City case.

 

[Chris in London]

Yes I know
But that element of FFPR exists to codify the existence of Statutes of Limitation into that particular set of rules.
If it wasn't in there the legal team would use whichever the European equivalent is to rule it out of time - i'm presuming 5 years is the European standard length of time for Civil cases of alleged financial impropriety.

I used the Limitation Act 1980 to outline my example not prove that was used in the City case.

Ah.

but even if, as you allege, he wanked dogs off in 2009, you made the allegation today. So if he wants to Sue you, under the legislation you referred to he will be able to. For the next 364 days, at least.

Feeling lucky?

 

[citizen_maine]

Ah.

but even if, as you allege, he wanked dogs off in 2009, you made the allegation today. So if he wants to Sue you, under the legislation you referred to he will be able to. For the next 5 years and 364 days, at least.

Feeling lucky?

He wanked dogs off in 2009? What a horrible man. If I'd ever listened to Talkshit, I'd have to stop in protest

 

[Corky]

Ah.

but even if, as you allege, he wanked dogs off in 2009, you made the allegation today. So if he wants to Sue you, under the legislation you referred to he will be able to. For the next 5 years and 364 days, at least.

Feeling lucky?

A year for libel/slander but it can be extended sometimes.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

As others have said TS isn't a sports news channel per se it constantly plays good cop, bad cop and invites fans to phone in to react to their ridiculous statements dressed up as fact. They aren't interested in discussing truths against fabrication or educating the listeners, they want partisan vitriol to match 100% Mo (Klopps personal fluffer) and Tits out Jackie going at it hammer and tongue for the delectation of other listeners whilst making themselves out to be a pair of knobs. It's doubtful either of them could IQ their way out of a shoebox.

That fact which suits the likes of that smug **** Jordan right down to the ground - he can make mincemeat of the great unwashed who phone into these shows and get through. It's why post match invariably they allow calls through from pissed up City fans who proceed to f and jeff or fail to make any form of coherent point and are instantly dismissed thereby painting the fanbase as some form of illiterate neanderthals. If there was a valid vetting process these loons wouldn't be allowed to get through in the first instance but that's who they want on.

Those of us with a firm grasp of the case history of City and FFP and the resulting CAS findings - all 93 pages, which quite clearly indicate their findings and reasons, legally and evidentially, which exonerate City fully from any accusation of "Owner sponsorship funding", which is the one and only breach of FFP allegation from UEFA (apart from the none co-operation - which was also fully explored in the findings), are not invited on to share any thoughts on the matter.

We know it was alleged there were breaches of the "Break Even" allowable figure after some jiggery pokery by UEFA in 2012 - 2013 and despite our protestations, took the infamous "pinch". I often wonder in retrospect if Khaldoon wishes he had told Infantino to fuck off and see you in court with your FFP bullshit and accountancy figure manipulations of pre-2010 salaries.

In any event Jordan often refers to this Settlement Agreement of 16.06.2014 as "Guilty of breaching FFP" (these alleged regulatory breaches never resulted in a referral by UEFA and this is made clear in Point 150 of the CAS findings so although we suffered a squad deduction and withholding of 20M UEFA funds - we were never found guilty of breaching FFP) and conflates it with the Der Spiegel emails and subsequent investigation Der Spiegel Shit to deliberately muddy the waters, he combines this with the well debunked none-cooperation fine to indicate guilt of something that only exists in the minds of the partisan.

If Jordan was as clever as he thinks he is, then surely he has read that document CAS Findings. He couldn't have read it and perversely come to any other conclusion than the evidence presented was not supported by factual events and that those actual events which were supported by evidence from the parties subject to the contract, clearly indicated allegations made were unfounded and the Judges at CAS were not sufficiently comfortable (the required "burden of proof") with those allegations.
That leaves us with:
a) He's really thick as mince and doesn't understand the legal document
b) He understands it but lies and continues to make slurs against the club as it doesn't fit with his personal agenda
c) He understands it but wants to keep to TS's narrative
d) He's not read it and makes allegations based on partisan twitterati bullshit
e) He remains entrenched with the tired old football model of Loan and debt repayment as the only viable way to run a 21st Century football club and refuses to believe in the equity investment model and subsequent venture capital investment projects that this attracts. As such he rails against City's ownership with these tired old allegations.

I can't wait for this final PL case to be ended and we can once and for all put this litigation bollocks behind us and get on with dominating world football Plan A.

You missed out one possible motive. Perhaps he is just a South London posh boy (who pretends he has some street cred) who has a problem with the ethnicity of our owners. He has certainly used the phrase about City: "I don't like those people and the way they do business." Sometimes the simple answer is the obvious one. I have never met him but apparently he is pure poison.

 

[Chris in London]

A year for libel/slander but it can be extended sometimes.

You’re quite right. See s4A.
I will amend my post.

 

[Chris in London]

He wanked dogs off in 2009?

allegedly.