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


Well-Known Member
13 Dec 2016
not at CAS
"... 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".

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.


Well-Known Member
14 Sep 2015
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.

We were found to have breached regulations - why would we not have to pay some of the costs?


Well-Known Member
20 Feb 2008
Sky report on it was all of 2 minutes and nothing about doctored emails, emails years before ffp etc. All about our fine and us not co-operating.


Well-Known Member
26 Apr 2006
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?

Are you disappointed with the outcome?

Mike Cledford

Well-Known Member
9 Jun 2019
Team supported
Man City
Haven'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.
Or even from UEFA to show they have learned from their errors


Well-Known Member
27 Mar 2011
Here's what Rob summarised for his readers -

That said, the Panel is of the view that UEFA by no means filed frivolous charges against MCFC. As also acknowledged by MCFC, there was a legitimate basis to prosecute MCFC, but, based on the evidence on file, the Panel finds that it cannot reach the conclusion that disguised equity funding was paid to MCFC by HHSM and/or ADUG through Etihad.

Rob Harris
UEFA charges not "frivolous” & “legitimate basis to prosecute"

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.