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

US owners see sport as a business. They invest and are entitled to a return. CFG are exactly the same. Soriano said recently “we have three principal shareholders and they want a return.” The saving grace is the capital appreciation. Make no mistake, CFG are in it to make money and will act accordingly, but, we hope, without the underhand methods of the red shirts. Future profits from the Etihad complex will accrue to CFG, starting with the Coop arena.
City will still have to wash its face.
It is a murky world. Generally money trumps legal rearguard actions. City now have the highest revenues but all parties have a self interest not to jeopardise revenues. Manchester City have arrived and are not going away in spite of the efforts of the entitled, self-styled elite. This has been the balancing act that will see us eventually receive acceptance as others recognise our business model.
 
Last edited:
It is a murky world. Generally money trumps legal rearguard actions. City now have the highest revenues but all parties have a self interest not to jeopardise revenues. Manchester City have arrived and are not going away in spite of the efforts of the entitled, self-styled elite. This has been the balancing act that will see us eventually receive acceptance as others recognise our business model.

And we are now “massive” in the USA as proved pre-season. I wonder if that was to prove a point to the Yanks.
 
To be fair, we agree to UEFA's licensing rules so we would need to comply with them. In civil cases (as this is) parties are obligated to disclose documents and evidence that both supports and weakens their case. Those are the rules.
I’m not sure there’s any obligation to disclose documents that support your case. What is the legal basis for that assertion?
 
To be fair, we agree to UEFA's licensing rules so we would need to comply with them. In civil cases (as this is) parties are obligated to disclose documents and evidence that both supports and weakens their case. Those are the rules.
Not if the documents they want constitute a fishing expedition. That was our case and CAS fundamentaly agreed though they still fined us for non co-operation.- The bonkers bit of the ruling in my head.
 
The Statute of Limitations will kick in given the glacial pace the PL are moving at.
That's what they might be going for.. can't see any wrongdoing, let it drag on until the limitation kicks in then say, well we had this on you but the statue of limitations prevents us from sanctioning you.
 
That's what they might be going for.. can't see any wrongdoing, let it drag on until the limitation kicks in then say, well we had this on you but the statue of limitations prevents us from sanctioning you.
Surely our reply to that would be, if you had the information, "you had plenty of time to sanction us "
Clearly they have nothing that would stand up to a legal challenge or they would be all over us.
 
Screenshot (8402).png


Dont know if this is the right place to post but i wonder how this works. surley its a conflict of interest.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.