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

CAS reviewed more evidence than UEFA did, hence why CAS stated that if we'd fully cooperated in the first place, then UEFA may well have come to the same conclusion as CAS. That's partly why they hit us with the €10million fine.

I think we are all making related but slightly different points that isn't really working on here!

I think it wanted to consider the email evidence including the leaks partly to prevent an appeal on the admissibility point.
 
You may well be right. FWIW was disappointed with Kloss when she informed the press, “in confidence”, that Mancini was being sacked, in the run up to the Wigan Cup Final. I just think managing the media with regard to FFP is an impossible job, given how loaded the media bias is against us.
I don’t think you were as unimpressed as Roberto was. He felt unsupported from her the whole time, I believe. He clearly felt the press had open day on attacking him at every conference, and it’s still going on, at every conference
 
Stop.

This is not what we do mate.

Posts like this give ammunition to our detractors and can be lifted by those who want to cast our fan base in a bad light.
Good grief..There was a little smiley at the end to show I wasn't serious but I think these peddlers of warped propaganda have already done more than enough to cast every single blue as an enemy of football and world peace.
 
I don’t think you were as unimpressed as Roberto was. He felt unsupported from her the whole time, I believe. He clearly felt the press had open day on attacking him at every conference, and it’s still going on, at every conference
Mancini knew full well he was going to be sacked, from the moment he was called to Abu Dhabi and told he would need to willingly cooperate with Txiki Bergiristain or else. When he told them to get lost, he knew he was getting his P45 at the end of the season. The club had no reason to support him.
 
Confused ? Plus does this mean we can work out what Etihad are paying and what if any increases there are or where over the period note Liverpool fans saying why would a company sign a deal then keep increasing how much they are paying unless related party etc etc

PB thinks it's three years payment of a sponsorship, two of which were brought forward a year - so it reports as being in years 0, 1 and 3 instead of 1, 2 and 3.

The increasing sponsorship theory was started by a Harris, I think. If I understand it right, @Prestwich_Blue believes that it's a misread taking 4 years of sponsorship and believing it to be over 3 years. I may be wrong in my interpretation there.
 
of course City were obstructive because City didnt want their private emails being passed onto the likes of you in the press you knobhead !!...thats Tony Evens not MillionMilesAway ;)

I was more thinking that the CAS panel seemed to be who he was referring to, and they didn't fine CIty 27M.

(and thanks for the clarification - would have seemed a bit harsh otherwise!)
 
I think we are all making related but slightly different points that isn't really working on here!

I think it wanted to consider the email evidence including the leaks partly to prevent an appeal on the admissibility point.
I agree. It was always easier to give little weight to the emails than it was to dismiss them. By overruling City on admissibility of emails and on the fact that Settlement Agreement didn’t cover any of the relevant topics, all of UEFAs arguments are effectively decided upon and dealt with.
 

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.