you just have to read the parts about their reasoning to charge us to see what they really think of us, they hold us in utter contempt. Completely partisan and unprofessional language."... 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".
I didn't realise it was so serious. I though we could only be banned from participation in the CL but not that club executives could be executed...Lol point 36. on page 14 - CAS wrote to the 9 clubs to tell them we hadn’t applied for a stay of execution so their application was MOOT!
Coded way of saying ‘fuck off’
We were found to have breached regulations - why would we not have to pay some of the costs?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.
Are you disappointed with the outcome?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?
Or even from UEFA to show they have learned from their errorsHaven't seen one journalist on Twitter give a balanced take on this. Also saw K-H Rummenigge earlier echoing Tebas's words to the effect that City got off because UEFA fucked up the case. Hope a few writs will be winging their way out of the Etihad soon.
Don't have an account?Register now!