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

[NorCalBlue]

Don't put astericks on a tweet pal, Liverpool fans will get giddy thinking it's about their PL title.

;-)

 

[Kirkiep]

;-)

Galling

 

[fulabeer]

I don't often do this but that BBC article has annoyed me enough to make a complaint. It's completely unacceptable that some bitter rag/dipper on their sportsdesk can get away with such a transparently biased article on a supposedly impartial public broadcast service and it's the main article no less.

If you also want to let them what you think
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint

Copy and paste this link into the text box for reference
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53571659

Just did a long winded complaint. I can understand the gutter press leading with this shit. But i'm not accepting it from the BBC. Has anybody forwarded this to City yet?

 

[Don Karleone]

Is it me or have the beeb slightly changed the headline stating City didn't break FFP ! at the end of it ?

It's what they and the rest of the media do. Clickbait headline first, truth later when they know most people have already seen the first one.

 

[bluwes]

Keegan and his family are all rags

Keegan is a Yonner

 

[slbsn]

 

[mccity]

The Guardian are going with time-barred.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I'm voluntarily off Twitter in protest against their failure to deal with antisemitism but there's going to be some fucking bloodletting at 9:01am tomorrow.

I'm getting ready for this...

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yeah, it's a shocker.

The Conn piece? Very odd to focus on the CFCB report so much. Shame CAS said no.

The "CFCB proved ADUG funding of other sponsorships in 2012" is amazingly bent in it's perspective - no mention that it's based on an email or two, and similar claims were binned as unsupported.

 

[BlueRockape]

To be clear, we are reprimanded for ‘lack of cooperation’ for 2 key identified issues.

1. UEFA demanded the right to cross examine a load of MCFC staff in their own hearing in 2019. Only Sorriano attended. The CAS states that MCFC provided these witnesses for CAS and their evidence was compelling. MCFC have put forward no reason as to why we presented these witnesses to CAS but not UEFA (guess we can’t say - ‘they are bent ****s’?)


2. Evidence never produced by City to the AC/IC - this was demands for full email transcripts AND OUR PERMISSION FOR UEFA TO LIAISE WITH ETIHAD TO DEMAND EMAILS/BANK TRANSFERS IN RELATION TO MCFC. UEFA have no legitimacy to request this, MCFC refused. MCFC later provided full transcripts of the 7 emails (yes, this case is based on 7 emails) for CAS, minus 1 redaction and 1 attachment. The emails were successfully argued out of context, and deliberately manipulated.

So on the 2 points we blocked the investigation, we later provided the full evidence to CAS. CAS reprimand us for this because it makes a farce of the appeal system to not provide evidence until the CAS hearing, especially as in both cases City offered no explanation as to why we didn’t give the evidence to UEFA but did to CAS. Note, UEFA refused to pursue City for the full emails as both parties wanted a resolution by July, therefore CAS find UEFA were satisfied with all evidence and City can’t be penalised for refusing to submit further docs later in the trial.

So when any journo says ‘CITY BLOCKED THE INVESTIGATION’ - we provided all of the evidence, in the end, and the strength of that evidence is absolute and undeniable on all points.

(A note, our Legal Rep lays an absolute zinger when he says ‘according to their statement, UEFA’s evidence is incontrovertible, therefore they shouldn’t be requesting further docs here at CAS’)

I wonder if any of our legal team will make a comment ?

 

[simon23]

So am i correct in thinking that

A) UEFA based part of their accusations on hacked emails - those emails have been proven to be not only illegally obtained but then tampered with/edited to make it seem that we were doing wrong. ie - someone deliberately tried to set us up by providing and or using evidence that was false.

B) The time bared thing - they tried to do us for deals/money that were outside the timeframe (before) FFP was brought in? UEFA basically tried to do us for doing something before the rules even existed?

C) UEFA's claims that we didn't cooperate multiple times was actually shown to be non cooperation just twice - refusing to answer questions based on evidence we knew to be at least incorrect and at worst a "fit up."

Is that about the short of it?

 

[kaz7]

Is it safe to assume all parties will now move on? The problem I see is that the clubs name and reputation has been stained throughout this process, but I guess there’s not a lot to do about it. I recall reading City’s initial response to the CAS verdict as something ’they welcomed’ but would make a statement once the full report is released or something like that.

I don’t know, but I have a feeling the last word hasn’t been said, although I think the club is quite fed up with legal processes.

Khaldoon will do his end of season interview then we will see

 

[Inter Me Nan]

The Guardian are going with time-barred.

Fuck them.

 

[maurizio]

Christ I've just read David Conn's piece in the Guardian. It's as bad as you would expect. Going big on 2 sponsorships implying we got round the rules but were time barred, as voted by 2 to 1. So the biased twats can still yell ":technicality." Then saying some lawyers have questioned the independence of the chairman as 'extraordinarily' City had chosen him. After all this it's still a hatchet job by the press. Ignore the verdict, UEFA's biased original investigation and blow up any negative stuff to the club out of all proportion. And now attack the CAS panel and it's independence.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Miguel Delaney is a very handsome, and ERUDITE young man...

erudite. More like a rude shite

 

[argyle]

Christ I've just read David Conn's piece in the Guardian. It's as bad as you would expect. Going big on 2 sponsorships implying we got round the rules but were time barred voted by 2 to 1. So the biased twats can still yell ":technicality"Then saying some lawyers have questioned the independence of the chairman as 'extraordinarily' City had chicken him. After all this it's still a hatchet job by the press. Ignore the verdict, UEFA's biased original investigation and blow up any negative stuff to the club out of all proportion. And now attack the CAS panel and it's independence.

...and the club will most probably allow them to get away with writing this stuff.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Just did a long winded complaint. I can understand the gutter press leading with this shit. But i'm not accepting it from the BBC. Has anybody forwarded this to City yet?

Yeah let Vicky Kloss know, she is renowned for coming out fighting, she is like the Charles Hawtrey of media relations

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I gather Ogden has singled out Tariq Panja & Rob Harris as "impartial sources" when both the NY Times and Associated Press were specifically named in the judgement as the publishers of supposedly confidential information that could only have come from inside UEFA. Yep, that's about as impartial as you can get. Ziegler is being briefed by City and Marcotti is his own man and the soundest journalist on FFP so I'll listen to what they have to say but Panja & Harris - really?

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

My complaint to BBC:

Dear sirs,
I find the report on the release of the full CAS findings in the case of UEFA vs Man City to be exceedingly biased in its tone and content. Although factually correct it misrepresents the whole completely. I can only surmise that it was written by somebody with an agenda against Manchester City and I find it reprehensible that the cherry-picking of itmes from the report has been done to sully the good name of an institution that works tirelessly in the community and one that has helped rejuvenate the area in which it finds itself.

I thought the remit of the BBC was to be impartial in all things not to pander to click-baiting nonsense such as this.

"Dear sirs"

That won't go down well at the bbc, they will have you down as a sexist, probably front page bbc headlines tomorrow.

"Manchester City fan write's disgracefully sexist letter"

"bbc employee severely traumatised"

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

All very well and good but the press influence a lot of people in what they think in this country. Just ignoring them allows them to distort and make the club look bad in the majority of peoples eyes. Surely they care about that?

Handing out cakes to the press during press conferences and matches isn't working.

I'd like to see our owners throwing some litigation towards organisations like the BBC and Sky. It would fail and cost a packet but it sends out a big message to them and to the general public.

Tbh the amount /quantity of negative city news coming from just those organisations is stark and obvious.