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

SebastianBlue said:
If true, this is inline with what many of us thought was the current situation between Ceferin and City.

And may be an indication that a cleaning of the UEFA chateau may be coming.

Click to expand...


"Right you little ****. Do that again and it'll be the last thing you ever do. In fact if I hear you even breathing too loudly you're getting it".
 
fallacy said:
the full quotes are mental to be fair


"We all know what City do. When they were punished (by UEFA originally), there was no surprise among the majority of us involved in European football.



"I don't want to say (people were) happy, but at last there was a sense of justice against these big state-owned clubs, the other being Paris Saint-Germain.




"City will be in the Champions League next season because the CAS did things badly, not because City have done things properly.



"I would like to see the CAS's final resolution. When it's released and I read it, I will say what I am convinced about to Guardiola, that they haven't done things properly. They've done things badly at the CAS.

"The CAS is dead. I've had doubts about the CAS for many years, not just because of this resolution, but for many more. It's the opposite of what it should be; there's no transparency."



City boss Guardiola feels his club are owed an apology, believing the verdict vindicates their rigorous defence of their position.



Tottenham manager Jose Mourinho branded the CAS decision a "a disgrace" and Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp said it was not "a good day for football."



Tebas alleges the four-time Premier League champions have used fictitious sponsors and inflated naming-rights deals to boost their income to allow them to spend big in the transfer market.



"When the CAS reversed the decision, there were protests – from Klopp, Mourinho – because we all know they're trying to find a way around the FFP rules," said Tebas.

"City, in the last five years, along with PSG, are the club that have spent the most.



"City haven't signed with their own resources, like Manchester United do, who bring in money through television or sponsors. They sign with petrodollars, with money obtained through oil by the (owners in the) United Arab Emirates.



"The state-owned clubs in Europe do what they want. Fictitious sponsors, naming rights (for stadiums) in the case of Man City.



"The Etihad Stadium is not worth (what is paid for it) and that creates a very dangerous economic situation for us."
Click to expand...

This **** makes Tuco Salamanca appear a bastion of rationality.
 
This is a really simplistic view of how I perceive UEFA's actions.
Trying to think logically about the charges brought against us makes me think that the Der Spiegel Emails convinced UEFA that the contract amounts agreed with Etihad were being largely funded by ADUG. (Owner funding) By extrapolation they must therefore have alleged that we committed an offence each time the annual payment amount was made to cover the contracted amount with Etihad - no matter what the splits were. An alleged offence in each of the years 2012 - 2016. Why not up to last years accounts? I suspect as this original period was still part of the supervision period and they were monitoring us and aware of a lot more financial transactions than they were once we were out of monitoring. This gave them 5 charges, one for each year. That would mean 2012 - 2014 would be time barred and not considered. 2015 & 2016 would therefore have been considered by CAS and we will have submitted sufficient rebuttal evidence that the allegations were not proven.
Its unclear at what stage we stopped co-operating and the exact grounds why we withdrew co-operation isn't 100% clear although we can surmise based on the first appeal to CAS. I'm sure the allegations are little more nuanced than that (a lot in fact).

If and its a large IF UEFA went with only this as evidence its hard to believe the IC and AC made sufficient considerations that any action taken against us was not solely negligent or ill conceived and that it was a deliberate act and malicious in nature with little chance of success and the sole intent of harm to our brand and image. There was no way we could avoid any charge of none co-operation as the whole regulations are written in a way that the governing body are omnipotent in relation to all information and documents etc. I think that is a disgusting abuse of process and they should be held accountable.
 
meltonblue said:
There is a big part of me that wouldn’t be surprised if we’ve been working with UEFA throughout with some of this. It was that incompetent by them, particularly the time barred element given precisely that had already gone against them at CAS before, that I do wonder if it was consciously done knowing this would be the outcome.
Click to expand...

My gut tells me that when the CAS ruling comes out we are going to think this is the case even more so.

I also think this is being used to shape a new footballing landscape, not run by the big clubs, but more competitive, with the ability to invest, to build better clubs with better business models. Things are going to change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.