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


Well-Known Member
28 Aug 2005
Bbc sport headline City show “blatant disregard” to uefa

holy smoke ??????

we are guilty a "blatant disregard" to co-operating with Uefa's investigation into potential Financial Fair Play (FFP) breaches, says the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas)

i give up the all the major media sites are wankers ? if manchester city don't show some bollocks here today with that headline from the BBC and bring them to court then sorry they will never change


Well-Known Member
13 Dec 2016
not at CAS
I've only skim read, but it came across that UEFA absolutely went to town on the charges and its insinuations about us, which doesn't bode well.

Am I right in concluding:

UEFA did follow due process, but both sides misinterpreted the deadline for time-barring.
City withheld evidence, the CAS panel took a dim view on it and didn't appear to recognise our legitimate reasoning.
It appears the additional evidence has almost completely disproved the substance of UEFA's charges. It also appears that any remaining commentary or accusations amounted to hearsay and hypotheticals with no substance.
The evidence and testimonies demonstrated that UEFA also had no reasonable evidence for any of the time-barred accusations, even though the CAS panel did not really make a full conclusion on this.
The original evidence was edited and misrepresented, and although City have not provided full unredacted access it is sufficient to dismiss UEFA's interpretation.
CAS acknowledged our concerns on the leaks, but as there is an ethics case outstanding refusing to take the matter further.
It is nonetheless clear that City did far more than "get off on a technicality" and actually, judging by the breakdown, had to defend itself far more than the media suspected as CAS did more of it as admissible than I initially expected.

Am I about right or can someone who has time to read it more thoroughly correct me?

stan bowles

Well-Known Member
28 Jul 2012
Seeing as City are completely innocent and the evidence against us was stolen and doctored why havent costs been awarded us. City are innocent UEFA should be paying our defence fees.

Obstructing a UEFA investigation, whether innocent or not, was deemed sufficiently worthy of a heavy fine, albeit reduced. 100,000 euros initial UEFA hearing costs also to be paid by City. CAS legal costs to be shared - not sure why.


Well-Known Member
27 Mar 2011
I'm no lawyer and I've only skim-read the full document but it wouldn't surprise me if we now appealed that fine. I've heard we took legal advice before refusing to co-operate, therefore we must feel there were legal grounds for our failure to provide the evidence UEFA asked for. And the CAS judgement says that UEFA's AC failed to ask for the evidence again.

Wouldn't that have happened by now, if it was going to? The parties got this document weeks ago.

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.