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

[SebastianBlue]

That interview reads (sounds) like his tax case was very much on his mind as he analysed the outcome.

 

[The zab man]

Tbf he's right, we should be paying **** all!

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

To any lurking dipper reading this thread, you manager is a CLASSLESS c#*t ......absolutely clueless !

Much more accurate .

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Poor old Gnashers, this verdict is clearly eating away at him. The hypocritical **** has built his success on a corrupt FFP stitch-up between his scum-sucking racist club and UEFA in 2015. #****

 

[Shirley]

He’s backtracked and fooled every one.

listen again.


Hose B I’m referring to.

 

[Shads]

The 'leaks' on Friday didn't match the wording/comments so they may well have originated from someone, somewhere having a punt based on gut feeling coming from the positive comments of those who were there and involved in the CAS process. It'll be interesting to see. Inevitably, if someone did leak information on Friday then the MCFC of today is a somewhat different beast to the MCFC of the past and leaks are unacceptable (unless of course a leak had been authorised in some way). We'll know eventually I'm sure.

On the 'time-barred' material.... What is angering me with the media most at the moment is that many journalists/reporters are claiming that City got off on a technicality. When we see the full CAS report we should know but at the moment I reckon that they've got the angle completely wrong. If CAS couldn't consider some accusations by UEFA because of the time-barred rule then that means that MCFC couldn't present its own case in relation to those accusations or defend those accusations. Worse, it was because of a UEFA rule not MCFC's, so if anything the media should be saying City were prevented from defending/challenging UEFA's views in these areas because UEFA had a time-bar on them! I may be totally misreading this area, but it seems logical that if something couldn't be heard because it had been time-barred then that's not the accused fault, nor is it a sign of their guilt. Anyone know anything about this area?

It’s normal in dealing with these type of actions to limit your submissions to the matters at issue. If as the Times article states that UEFA went first and if the Panel accepted that there were some issues that were time barred, then although City will have prepared their case to deal with those issues the Panel would simply not have heard them as there was no case to answer. In a time limited hearing of this nature of only 3 days it is much better for the time to be spent on contested issues than otherwise. That may even have been the reason that UEFA went first, to specifically deal with and get out of the way the time barred issues.

 

[The perfect fumble]

 

[kaz7]

Yeah I just saw this. Maybe I should learn to not just go with the shocking headline.

In fairness to Jose, he says that he doesnt know what was the correct decision but if you are found not guilty, why should you have to pay anything? £1, or £9m, it doesnt matter. You are innocent, you should not have to pay. A lot of people on here (myself included) said the exact same thing yesterday.

It was because of all the leaks,we complained and it kept happening,legally we are not going to have our evidence leaked and twisted,the fine is down from about £28m to £8 m,it was a nothing breach

 

[Ban-jani]

It’s not that hard to understand is it?

Why doesn’t anyone understand the £8m fine?

 

[Manchester33]

I actually think he's being very fair in that. Albeit from an incredibly uninformed understanding of whats happened.

We were punished for not cooperating with the investigation, not for what we were accused of.

His grasp on English is brilliant, but he still exerts Portuguese culture through his communication (the tone he uses and the dry, slightly abrupt responses).