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

[Tricky_Trev]

To be clear, we are reprimanded for ‘lack of cooperation’ for 2 key identified issues.

1. UEFA demanded the right to cross examine a load of MCFC staff in their own hearing in 2019. Only Sorriano attended. The CAS states that MCFC provided these witnesses for CAS and their evidence was compelling. MCFC have put forward no reason as to why we presented these witnesses to CAS but not UEFA (guess we can’t say - ‘they are bent ****s’?)


2. Evidence never produced by City to the AC/IC - this was demands for full email transcripts AND OUR PERMISSION FOR UEFA TO LIAISE WITH ETIHAD TO DEMAND EMAILS/BANK TRANSFERS IN RELATION TO MCFC. UEFA have no legitimacy to request this, MCFC refused. MCFC later provided full transcripts of the 7 emails (yes, this case is based on 7 emails) for CAS, minus 1 redaction and 1 attachment. The emails were successfully argued out of context, and deliberately manipulated.

So on the 2 points we blocked the investigation, we later provided the full evidence to CAS. CAS reprimand us for this because it makes a farce of the appeal system to not provide evidence until the CAS hearing, especially as in both cases City offered no explanation as to why we didn’t give the evidence to UEFA but did to CAS. Note, UEFA refused to pursue City for the full emails as both parties wanted a resolution by July, therefore CAS find UEFA were satisfied with all evidence and City can’t be penalised for refusing to submit further docs later in the trial.

So when any journo says ‘CITY BLOCKED THE INVESTIGATION’ - we provided all of the evidence, in the end, and the strength of that evidence is absolute and undeniable on all points.

(A note, our Legal Rep lays an absolute zinger when he says ‘according to their statement, UEFA’s evidence is incontrovertible, therefore they shouldn’t be requesting further docs here at CAS’)

So the top and bottom of it is the ONLY thing we are guilty of is not trusting UEFA... and who does?

 

[Corky]

The Blatant Disregard is a direct quote and the most damming bit - no surprise they are leading with it, it is what they always do.

Just best to ignore stuff like this.

 

[flook]

Was so f---ing annoyed couldnt remember what the first headline was exactly. They dont usually do it that quickly wonder if the number of complaints have hastened this it's usually an overnight thing !

the whole article has been heavily edited I think. Someone on here has archived the original, can't remember who though

 

[flook]

I thought he was being sarcastic! I could well be wrong.

Thats how I read it too

 

[Nails]

Is it me or have the beeb slightly changed the headline stating City didn't break FFP ! at the end of it ?

Yes, the complaints DID make a difference

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Does it contain lies, or is it just distorted/partial?

Conn's stuff is very poor. It's not outright lies; he's a lawyer so too clever for that but it's as twisted as the der Spiegel emails.

He claims that the Etisalat contract wasn't signed until 2015 and was backdated but paragraph 11 in the CAS judgement states quite clearly that the first sponsorship agreement with Etisalat was signed by City on 24 Feb 2010 and became effective on that date. That was a Heads of Agreement that was deemed to be legally binding until the long form agreement was signed. So his assertion is grossly misleading if not downright false.

 

[Jacko1956]

His Times article doesn't show it, like all the rest of the weasels he focuses on the obstruction angle.

For all those that have concentrated on this site the BBC have completely altered their report changing the headline and some of the text and included Dsn Roen's tweets the bastards spent 45 mins on their complaint form and have obviously read more of the CAS findings and back tracked on the post but most will have read the original so theve got the jod done the bastards of getting us blacked again.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Perhaps it is perhaps it isn't, you don't know for certain and you're not serving any positive purpose by trying to discourage others from submitting a complaint tbh

Telling someone to stop banging their head against a brick wall can serve a useful purpose.

 

[LucahArchie10]

I gather Ogden has singled out Tariq Panja & Rob Harris as "impartial sources" when both the NY Times and Associated Press were specifically named in the judgement as the publishers of supposedly confidential information that could only have come from inside UEFA. Yep, that's about as impartial as you can get. Ziegler is being briefed by City and Marcotti is his own man and the soundest journalist on FFP so I'll listed to what they have to say but Panja & Harris - really?

So PB whats the next step, piece after piece, artical after article then radio blah blah blah all fucking City over.

Will City boss's take this shit?, should we as fans keep listening to this bullshit?

I'm sick in the teeth how these low lifes can just get together & tarnish not just City but the CFG & its supporters, sponsors everything

I get it nothing could be said before CAS but surely now its time to turn up the heat on every single 1 of these fucking toe rags.

Spend the money & take them down

Then spend £350m in the transfer market & watch them fucking cry

I fucking hate them

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The Blatant Disregard is a direct quote and the most damming bit - no surprise they are leading with it, it is what they always do.

Just best to ignore stuff like this.

There's no question we took legal advice on that. We didn't do it capriciously.