From my quick reading, which I haven't finished, CAS declared that anything that happened prior to 2014 was time-barred but not anything after. So they could examine the sponsorship revenues that were paid after 2014 and found those were properly paid and weren't disguised equity funding. That clearly implies that had the other payments not been time-barred, they would also have been found to be properly paid.
Therefore anyone claiming we got off "on a technicality" is completely wrong.
I'm not even sure they would look at evidence that pre-dates that tbh.Haven’t read it all in detail but it seems we might be even more in the clear now with this out? Could CAS see any breaches made by City at all, even before this five year timeframe?
because its more public,city wanted this out there, rather than a not guilty from those bent twats in eufaI've had a quick scan.
Bottom line, there's no evidence that City disguised equity funding as sponsorship.
CAS say UEFA might have reached the same conclusion if they had seen all the evidence that was presented by City at the appeal but UEFA didn't request that info - so the fuckers were not thorough enough and City IMO decided to fuck UEFA at CAS.
Well done mate, you've taken dogs abuse from some quarters but you were right. Legend.Also, just to make the point clearly, para 209 says, in one short sentence so not even the thickest of scouse journalists can misunderstand "The Panel notes that UEFA's case is primarily premised on the leaked emails."
From my quick reading, which I haven't finished, CAS declared that anything that happened prior to 2014 was time-barred but not anything after. So they could examine the sponsorship revenues that were paid after 2014 and found those were properly paid and weren't disguised equity funding. That clearly implies that had the other payments not been time-barred, they would also have been found to be properly paid.
I think wolves withdrew?So, not an ‘Hateful Eight’, but an ‘hateful nine’. Page 14, point 32