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

Blue Theatre

Well-Known Member
14 Feb 2011
Got this from City_Xtra

"CAS Report: "UEFA wishes to add that it considers MCFC to be a very important participant to UEFA club competitions. It welcomes all the good which MCFC has brought to the football world and it welcomes significant investments made by the club and its owners."

"... although we did try to ban you from playing European football, call you cheats, impose another huge fine, drag your reputation through the mud, used hacked emails against you, and our concerted efforts mean that fans of every other club in the World now hate you".


Well-Known Member
14 Sep 2015
Really? Haha. What a fecking shambles. I hope there are grounds to sue Der Spiegel. Surely they have an obligation to apply some form of quality control in relation to 'primary source' information. Unless they manipulated the emails, which would surely give us grounds to pursue legal damages.

It's all because UEFA contended that they could reopen material. CAS viewed that that would lead to a permanently open-ended scenario and rejected the contention.

It's not that an email from 10 years ago was used without a legal argument as to why it should be used.


Well-Known Member
13 Dec 2016
not at CAS
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.

I presume because CAS determined that UEFA had grounds to initiate the case based on the context of the emails.


Well-Known Member
4 Feb 2010
Between zen and mad
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?
We provided CAS with everything,we didn't to UEFA because they were not following due process and keep it all confidental,they were leaking like a sieve


Well-Known Member
6 Jan 2009
The nauseas nine, the nasty nine. Any more?

Given that the intention of their letter to the CAS was to ensure that the ban against City would not be stayed whilst the matter was being investigated and the fact that City hadn't even asked for this from CAS, then the Numbskull Nine would seem to be a fitting moniker!

The SSN reporter seemed to find that bit amusing in his report.

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.