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

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.
 
We know where the additional funding (the so-called "central resources") really came from. It came from the Executive Council/Crown Prince Court but they couldn't admit that obviously. But the crucial point is it wasn't Sheikh Mansour/ADUG. That seems to have been comprehensively demonstrated to CAS's satisfaction. You always maintained that if Etihad were contracted to pay us £x and they paid us £x then there was no case ot answer. But you also maintained that it didn't matter where Etihad got that money from.

This judgement shows that the core part of UEFA's case was that this was disguised equity investment. You were absolutely right about the time-barred stuff (although CAS upheld UEFA's right to revisit the settlement agreement) but the issue of disguised equity investment, and therefore the source of the Etiahd funds, was always the key to this.

On another point, I notice Conn takes the very disingenouous line that the Etisalat agreement wasn't signed until 2015 but was backdated to 2012, ignoring the fact that the original Heads of Agreement for that arrangement was signed in Feb 2010. I'd be interested on your view of that.
HH is definately the Emir.
I think the report has lost a bit of detail here in that Sheikh Sultan Bin Tahoon Al Nayhan is one of the Emir's personal secretaries and the Emir's representative for day-to-day business on many companies and organisations. In this case the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority (ADTA).
So Simon Pearce would have to speak to/through him to discuss business matters like this with the Emir. In day to day business affairs, he is in effect the Emir.
 
Last edited:
Nick Harris' tweet here shows his lack of understanding:

You should probably read the CAS document Patrice; the emails were both authentic and admissible, the CAS panel found. But by all means keep believing in fiction.
There seems to be lots of accusations flying around, of people reading only what they want to, from their side of it. Quite ironic considering how weak the arguments against City have become, all that cherry picking and that's the best they could come up with? Not one good argument as to why City got off on technicality from 94 pages.

I think a symptom of it being such a long document is, they're clearly not allowing themselves to process things before moving onto their next cherry pick. If he got the point, Nick clearly wouldn't have used the word "authentic" for an email that was spliced together from two different time frames, in an effort to mislead.


Time-barred. There's a lot of time-barred. Over alleged disguised equity funding for Etisalat and bits of Etihad. But the emails: authentic and admissible. Which pretty much make a mockery of 'organised and clear.'
He's also wrong about the Etihad disguised equity payment accusation being time-barred, along with all but one Etisalat payment(2012-2013) which was both time-barred and not established if I have read it correctly. It seems even he has dropped Aabar as a talking point, as have all the other anti-City journos. However if everyday fans are still spotting obvious mistakes in what he's saying, he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about in most his tweets about the report. It's just like the reaction to the Mane sending off, everything in the rules said it was red card but they just can't/won't accept it.

Examples of his cherry-picking:

"Not sufficient evidence" is cropping up a lot too. Not "no evidence", or "evidence that disproves".
So you didn't see "no evidence" used in the document Nick?

Well done for the quick response whoever that was. Keep on him, he's out of his depth and it's showing. From point 218 onwards it gets "very interesting" as Nick would say, it makes him look pretty clueless by trying to claim it was to do with time barring.

It shows that there was "no evidence" that His Highness referred to Sheikh Mansour and "no evidence"that the arrangement made in 2010 continued after FFP was implemented. There was "No evidence" that ADUG would be remitting funds through the sponsors and this was even contradicted by the witness and accounting evidence(Etihad's accounts I wonder?) provided by City. "No evidence" that the £59.5m was funded or procured to be funded by either Sheikh Mansour or ADUG. All seems pretty central to the argument you're trying to make there Nick and more I've left out.

Using an email from 2010 before FFP was established in email 1, without acknowledging this. Splicing 2 separate emails together, to make it seem like it was 1 complete email. Both seem like attempts to mislead the public and the wider sports press. Not that they needed much encouragement to believe everything, without questioning anything.

I was under the impression that the publicly released email 4 was an email from 2010 merged with one from 2013 but it appears it is not. They were 2 days apart in August 2013. I'm not sure how relevant that is but I assume CAS got to see these emails in full and this provided more context for CAS, since most of it is redacted in the report?

A reminder of how much shorter the email Der Spiegel presented was:
https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278


He also mentioned that City didn't provide witness for UEFA's investigation but it seems to have escaped him that they were present at CAS's hearing and both sides had the opportunity to cross examine each witness.

As for Etihad raising the value 4 times, being "interesting" to him, it's not proof of anything. Nor is there any need to show "losing bidders" to justify raising it. If City felt they weren't getting enough to stay competitive, they had every right to re-negotiate. If Etihad didn't want to do that, City could have feasibly found another shirt sponsor(comparing it to any other club in the top 4, while being the most successful team of the last decade), kept the stadium naming deal in place and probably ended up better off. In fact, there was talk of that circulating before UEFA's verdict got dropped in City's lap but Nick is only interested in a certain flavour of rumour.

What a muppet, I can't believe he gets paid to write in sports.
 
Last edited:
They are yes.

I wish I didn't let it get to me however the club continually gets trashed daily and I'm sick of it.
The bit that gets to me most is not the media, so much. We all know why it’s happening. We know it shouldn’t but it’s all about money and the click bait.
We all know there is only one guy with the balls to say what is really going on.

The bit that gets me is the knowledge of just how bent football is. I hate teams now that I never used to growing up, because of what happens off the field.
And I’m sure everyone who is associated with football, ex footballers, managers and officials know the inside story but there isn’t any one of them willing to rock the boat. Any of the pundits we see from any of the red wearing clubs, know full well what’s going on, but the whole charade of a sport with any shred of integrity that they might have had still being intact, is what is presented.

Even with VAR coming under scrutiny they still put it across as technical issues needing tweaking instead of the tool of corruption that it is.

The only one I can think of that was anyway willing to buck the trend was Souness. And even with him it is more telling what is really going on, in what he leaves out saying, rather than calling it completely straight.

I still love City and it is a pleasure to see how we play the game.
But I’m completely out of love with the game. Liverpool more than anyone else have done that to me. My best mate’s a Liverpool fan and he cheered louder than anyone when City won in 2012. His two boys in their 20’s had never seen them win the PL and I’d love to be magnanimous about it and wish them well.
The fact is their club and the rest of the poxy G14 and now almost half the PL as well and every poxy pundit, ex footballer and managers that show as little integrity as UEFA and FIFA or any of the major governing bodies, have all fucked up the pleasure of football for me.

It’s totally fucked up when you have to admit that you’d rather see us tear them all apart in court than on the field. That you’d like to see Parry, Gill, Tebas et al caught for the corrupt cartel supporting scum they are, than to see us win the CL.

That’s where I’m at. It’s not right.
Seeing Silva win the CL might change my attitude but I just don’t see it being allowed.

The media are cnuts. We all know that.
But the game itself and all that are involved in it are responsible for the whole sorry mess being in the sewer.
 
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’)
w

Wonder what was in the redaction and attachment we did not provide no doubt someone in the media will point to not providing it as proof CAS got it wrong. Presumably UEFA and CAS never got anything out of Etihad they had no jurisdiction on this hence the orginal block
 
It makes me laugh that CAS makes it clear that Der Spiegel were very selective about what they published, that being just 6 of 5.5m documents. And one of those was 2 emails they'd shamefully stitched together to give (as CAS said) a distorted view.

Yet not one of our fearless guardians of the truth in the media is prepared to call them out over this but -equally shamefully - they're all trying to outdo each other in being highly and often maliciously selective in what they print.

Utter lying vermin the lot of them.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  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.