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

[slbsn]

The term worrisome leaks has already been used, so some strong criticism of uefa is certainly possible.

The €10m fine tells you they did not sympathise too much with City on that issue.

 

[pudge]

lmao, is this the lawyer Uefa sent? Galaxy brain stuff.

UEFA quite clearly messed up when they hired the best lawyers they could to fight their case when they should have hired rival fans and Stephen Warnock as they know everything.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Fine was not quashed completely to save some face for UEFA.

We shouldn't pay it , we should challenge it and win the case and have UEFA pay for all our legal fees.

Difficult to quantify further costs to the club in terms of brand damage etc but again an ambit claim wouldn't go astray.

This was always the status quo attacking the new kid on the block forgetting how they got to where they were in the first place.

Pep is right when he says you cannot become a competitor year in year out unless you have the funds to spend and the brand to support it.

it will only get worse as the years pass but you can do it with style and a good business model that will by and large stand the test of time.

We have without yet securing a Chumps and the " bigger boys " don't like their toys taken from them.

We can't contest the fine because we are guilty of non-cooperation. We did it deliberately and even issued a press release explaining why we did it. It was a brlliant tactical move but we have to take the rap. It was a price worth paying. You can't expect CAS to issue a ruling encouraging other clubs to refuse to co-operate with their controlling body. CAS reduced the fine from £27m because they recognised why City did it.

 

[Keeper!]

The €10m fine tells you they did not sympathise too much with City on that issue.

Still strange they reduced the fine by 2/3rds.

The final written judgement will be interesting to say the least.

 

[93.20]

More needs to be said to dispute the "got off on a technicality" narrative that forms part of the discussion in literally every media forum. The actual fact of the matter is that City were cleared of any wrongdoing over the central allegation. Part of UEFA's case was not considered due to time limits. That does not equal "got off on a technicality". Had there been no time limitations, our legal team would have won these arguments as well.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

FFS City... if you don't act on this then you've got no right to complain about the amount of bad mouthing going on.

I reckon he’s just become number one on my hate list. Clear agenda against City, what a ****.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Made me smile.....

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

We can't contest the fine because we are guilty of non-cooperation. We did it deliberately and even issued a press release explaining why we did it. It was a brlliant tactical move but we have to take the rap. It was a price worth paying. You can't expect CAS to issue a ruling encouraging other clubs to refuse to co-operate with their controlling body. CAS reduced the fine from £27m because they recognised why City did it.

That's my thoughts as well. Could take UEFA to court to reclaim this fine IF we have evidence that their investigation was not secure wrt our data but I doubt we will at the moment.

 

[SilverFox2]

As regards the "time-barring" comments in the media, I'd point out that the time restrictions placed on enforcement action aren't just random time limits self-imposed for no reason, they are there to reflect Article 6 of the EHCR, the right to a fair trial and, in particular, the right to have your hearing held within "a reasonable time". The fact that UEFA decided that the principles of the right to a fair trial don't apply to City and that it should over-ride its own rules tells its own story.

So right on them assuming that rules do not apply to them but expecting that their interpretation of their own rules has little to do with its written version.
Hubris holds no bounds, the media has been briefed surely we can con the judges as well?
However it may suit the cabel purpose to continue disinformation whilst a hopeless legal Swiss Court Appeal generates hope (time) with UEFA the cost victim.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Defo we were given a 2 year ban expecting it be reduced to 1 which was job done for our name and brand to be permanently damaged !

And this was the line which most of the media ran with throughout the investigation. The one year ban was mentioned in one of the five leaks from inside the UEFA investigations committee (IC) It must have been co-ordinated not just a rogue leak. That would explain the absurd response from Yves Leterme when City complained about the leaks. He claimed there had been no leaks and there was nothing to investigate. CAS said his response was "worrisome." Ceferin must have offered City a one year ban instead of two during his Christmas meeting. UEFA knew their case was weak and needed City to agree a settlement like last time. They used their pals in the media to undermine City at every stage. A lot of journalists were still mouthing the "one-year ban Mantra" right up until last weekend.