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


Well-Known Member
4 Feb 2010
Between zen and mad
CAS Report: "There is no evidence that agreements were backdated or that MCFC otherwise retrospectively tried to cover up any alleged violations following the publication of the Leaked Emails."

"The majority of the panel finds that Etihad sponsorship agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM, ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be 'related parties

- The Leaked emails comprise admissible evidence - The Panel is 'not comfortably satisfied' that #MCFC disguised equity funding from HHSM and/or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from Etihad

"In the absence of a link being proven between HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad (as indicated in the figure below), the majority of the Panel finds that UEFA's theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated.


Well-Known Member
27 Jul 2020
It still really boils my piss. UEFA take this flimsy evidence, and on that basis ban us for 2 years and drag our good name through the mud. Why the fuck should we pay them a penny. They are the ones that should be recompensing us for damages and bloody slander.


Maybe a bit of a stretch, but this could’ve been UEFA’s plan all along. They knew they didn’t have a case but they banned City based on nothing, knew City would appeal to CAS but still got all the media attention in the process, adding more public suspicion to the club and trying to ruin our rep for as long as possible. Even if we won this case, the damage is almost irreparable.


Well-Known Member
27 Mar 2011
By the way, if anyone thinks the press coverage of this is unacceptable,

The standards of accuracy the press must follow -

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.


Don't have an account?

Register now!
  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.