It doesn't do our credibility any good to say "they couldn't admit that obviously." The ADUG/SM source couldn't be proved - it was UEFA's burden and they could never hope to jump the witness statements (without cross examination) and letters on these points.
I thought that the sections on the settlement agreement were a little unconvincing - arguing the subject matter was different (para 154 says "these specific charges do not touch upon the issues addressed in the SA") is tenuous but, of course, arguable. These are all quite nuanced things.
The Etisalat was not backdated - it was signed and dated January 2015 but with an effective date earlier. That is, as Conn knows, not the same thing. Moreover the Heads were binding and specifically envisaged being in place prior to the full signed agreement. So I agree it is disingenuous.
Looking at the judgment, it is possible that if UEFA could have shown a more direct link to subsidies from ADUG/SM then they would have disagreed with me as to the importance of the legal sponsor contract and could well have found in UEFA's favour. In essence, that would have been a finding that the legal contract was a sham. Yet again a serious allegation with a high standard of proof that it was always likely UEFA couldn't hit.