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

spiny

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 Feb 2010
Messages
1,011
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:

cheekybids

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Messages
3,949
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.
 

gordondaviesmoustache

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
65,062
Location
Patronising, condescending twat
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?
 

BlueAnorak

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 Oct 2010
Messages
20,803
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.
 

StrutterBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Mar 2011
Messages
1,226
Location
Stalybridge
Team supported
City
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.
 

Chappie

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Aug 2008
Messages
1,447
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.
 

Manc123

Active Member
Joined
5 Apr 2022
Messages
44
Team supported
Man city
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!
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.