Decent summary on reddit if anyone interested:
Summary of main findings:
•The Leaked Emails were the main driving force behind UEFA's arguments. Man City produced the original documents when asked to do so. Thus, it was determined that while the leaked versions were somewhat cherry-picked, "this did NOT affect the veracity of the Leaked Emails on which UEFA primarily built its case".
•Man City's argument that the Leaked Emails should be inadmissible FAILS because of the strong public interest involved. While the leaks were illegal (and the person responsible is curently serving a prison sentence in Portugal), UEFA did not partake in the leak, and the fact that multiple articles were printed in multiple media outlets only further proves that the public interest outweighs Man City's interest.
•Man City's allegations that the CFCB violated their due process rights (with the multiple leaks from within the Investigatory Committee, plus the allegedly expedited process) are NOT sufficiently substandiated by the evidence and arguments they produced.
•Man City's argument that the Settlement Agreement the club made with UEFA in 2014 precludes UEFA from pursuing this case is NOT compelling; the issues at hand are not covered by the Settlement Agreement.
•With regards to the idea that the charges are time-barred, CAS considered that the arguments presented by Man City and UEFA were BOTH wrong, and that in reality only "crimes" committed after the 15th of May 2014 may be prosecuted. This cuts out part (less than half) of the alleged "crimes".
(!) •With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").
(!) • UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.
(!) •On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accouting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).
(!) •CAS found that most of the requests for evidence made by the CFCB were reasonable, but that Man City was "very reluctant and at times uncooperative" with regards to producing them. There are 2 specific examples mentioned, and they comprise the reason for the fine.
•UEFA recognized that Man City only partially produced the desired documents, yet explicitly accepted the fact that NO inferrence can be made from this fact (that is, they CAN'T claim that there reason Man City was uncooperative was because they hid incriminating evidence). They did this in order to get a rapid process, one that reached its conclusion before the start of the 2020/21 season.
TL;DR: UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove these statements. Their entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed. A small part of the offenses were time-barred (those made prior to May 15, 2014). Basically, CAS recognized that UEFA felt pressured to start the investigation (as the leaks published in multiple news agencies were compelling enough to start an investigation, but not sufficient to prove the end result) and to finish it before the start of the next season.
Summary of main findings:
•The Leaked Emails were the main driving force behind UEFA's arguments. Man City produced the original documents when asked to do so. Thus, it was determined that while the leaked versions were somewhat cherry-picked, "this did NOT affect the veracity of the Leaked Emails on which UEFA primarily built its case".
•Man City's argument that the Leaked Emails should be inadmissible FAILS because of the strong public interest involved. While the leaks were illegal (and the person responsible is curently serving a prison sentence in Portugal), UEFA did not partake in the leak, and the fact that multiple articles were printed in multiple media outlets only further proves that the public interest outweighs Man City's interest.
•Man City's allegations that the CFCB violated their due process rights (with the multiple leaks from within the Investigatory Committee, plus the allegedly expedited process) are NOT sufficiently substandiated by the evidence and arguments they produced.
•Man City's argument that the Settlement Agreement the club made with UEFA in 2014 precludes UEFA from pursuing this case is NOT compelling; the issues at hand are not covered by the Settlement Agreement.
•With regards to the idea that the charges are time-barred, CAS considered that the arguments presented by Man City and UEFA were BOTH wrong, and that in reality only "crimes" committed after the 15th of May 2014 may be prosecuted. This cuts out part (less than half) of the alleged "crimes".
(!) •With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").
(!) • UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.
(!) •On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accouting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).
(!) •CAS found that most of the requests for evidence made by the CFCB were reasonable, but that Man City was "very reluctant and at times uncooperative" with regards to producing them. There are 2 specific examples mentioned, and they comprise the reason for the fine.
•UEFA recognized that Man City only partially produced the desired documents, yet explicitly accepted the fact that NO inferrence can be made from this fact (that is, they CAN'T claim that there reason Man City was uncooperative was because they hid incriminating evidence). They did this in order to get a rapid process, one that reached its conclusion before the start of the 2020/21 season.
TL;DR: UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove these statements. Their entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed. A small part of the offenses were time-barred (those made prior to May 15, 2014). Basically, CAS recognized that UEFA felt pressured to start the investigation (as the leaks published in multiple news agencies were compelling enough to start an investigation, but not sufficient to prove the end result) and to finish it before the start of the next season.