Gordyola
Well-Known Member
She never said
Very much deserved
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
Very much deserved
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Didn't Ceferin say at the outset that there was 'concrete' evidence against us?
Someone said it I'm sure, I always thought it was him.
No, he didn't.
He said there was now a concrete case.
However, I believe this is a bad translation from Slovenian and means 'specific' in this context.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
This is exactly the case impossible to win All we can do it give the friendly ones access and exclusivesThe optics of that are even worse though aren't they....
"JUST LIKE ABU DHABI, FREE SPEECH QUASHED AS CITY BAN REPORTERS"
"OIL RICH CITY BAN JOURNALISTS IN LATEST SHOW OF DISRESPECT"
"MONEY HUNGRY PEP BANS REPORTERS"
"HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS BANS REPORTERS, JUST WHAT IS PEP HIDING?"
BringBackSwales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 33,650
We should let them in, if they behave, if they don’t then privately warn them, if it happens again then fuck em off, let them go and have a cuddle with OGS or feed a fucking carrot to me edDo we actually have to let these fuckers into our pressers
Can we actually say to Harris, Delaney, Stone or Conn you can fuck right off if you think your coming in here?
BringBackSwales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 33,650
£27m is still a fraction of what L(iars) FC spend in a year in “stadium planning consultancy fees”Tony Evans' diatribe today in the Indie is hilarious in how much spin is applied to discredit UEFA.
Oh, and somewhat laissez faire approach to detail. I like "City were obstructive to the point where the panel fined them £27m."
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
Thinking about the question raised by someone of twatterati fame, I believe it was our german friend Christoph, regarding the use of the emails from Der Spiegel. Question being why didn't UEFA seek to obtain the originals from Pinto or Der Spiegel.
I'm wondering if that would have effected their viewed provenance in the case as the originals weren't in public circulation and therefore it wasn't these originals that had prompted the investigation but the widely available redacted published versions in various news publications. Although it would have been open to a view from the arbitration judges as to whether the differences were material or not and their admissibility, a ruling against them would have completely collapsed the case leaving only the none co-operation S.56 charge.
Does anyone truly believe that had CIty complied fully with UEFA's requests in their IC investigation that UEFA would have miraculously found no case to answer? I think we all know the answer to that little conundrum and we would have found ourselves in exactly the same position of having to appeal to CAS with a likelihood that UEFA would have had bigger nails to try to nail us to the wall with. The level of compliance required by the FFP Regulations is extraordinary and I can understand CIty's reticence of having UEFA's stooges, namely the likes of Gill and Parry being privvy to the contents of our underwear draws and for that information to be splashed over the front pages of the New York Times and the Liverpool Echo at best or forming the basis for our most despised enemies on and off field decisions.
Having obviously taken appropriate legal advice we deservedly told them to fuck off.
I'm wondering if that would have effected their viewed provenance in the case as the originals weren't in public circulation and therefore it wasn't these originals that had prompted the investigation but the widely available redacted published versions in various news publications. Although it would have been open to a view from the arbitration judges as to whether the differences were material or not and their admissibility, a ruling against them would have completely collapsed the case leaving only the none co-operation S.56 charge.
Does anyone truly believe that had CIty complied fully with UEFA's requests in their IC investigation that UEFA would have miraculously found no case to answer? I think we all know the answer to that little conundrum and we would have found ourselves in exactly the same position of having to appeal to CAS with a likelihood that UEFA would have had bigger nails to try to nail us to the wall with. The level of compliance required by the FFP Regulations is extraordinary and I can understand CIty's reticence of having UEFA's stooges, namely the likes of Gill and Parry being privvy to the contents of our underwear draws and for that information to be splashed over the front pages of the New York Times and the Liverpool Echo at best or forming the basis for our most despised enemies on and off field decisions.
Having obviously taken appropriate legal advice we deservedly told them to fuck off.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
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 doubt Uefa would have found us not guilty if we had submitted evidence earlier.
CAS were at pains that both parties were incorrect in terms of the time barred periods?
UEFA'S submissions show that they considered us guilty already on hypothesis.
Who is X?
Why was Pearce untouchable?
Both CAS and Uefa were very careful not to land themselves with a law suit from all the witnesses involved, including all the top auditors.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
It was a bold and brilliant move by our lawyers. If we had given our evidence to UEFA they would have leaked it and we would have been destroyed by the media. We could have easily lost the case.Thinking about the question raised by someone of twatterati fame, I believe it was our german friend Christoph, regarding the use of the emails from Der Spiegel. Question being why didn't UEFA seek to obtain the originals from Pinto or Der Spiegel.
I'm wondering if that would have effected their viewed provenance in the case as the originals weren't in public circulation and therefore it wasn't these originals that had prompted the investigation but the widely available redacted published versions in various news publications. Although it would have been open to a view from the arbitration judges as to whether the differences were material or not and their admissibility, a ruling against them would have completely collapsed the case leaving only the none co-operation S.56 charge.
Does anyone truly believe that had CIty complied fully with UEFA's requests in their IC investigation that UEFA would have miraculously found no case to answer? I think we all know the answer to that little conundrum and we would have found ourselves in exactly the same position of having to appeal to CAS with a likelihood that UEFA would have had bigger nails to try to nail us to the wall with. The level of compliance required by the FFP Regulations is extraordinary and I can understand CIty's reticence of having UEFA's stooges, namely the likes of Gill and Parry being privvy to the contents of our underwear draws and for that information to be splashed over the front pages of the New York Times and the Liverpool Echo at best or forming the basis for our most despised enemies on and off field decisions.
Having obviously taken appropriate legal advice we deservedly told them to fuck off.
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
Thinking about the question raised by someone of twatterati fame, I believe it was our german friend Christoph, regarding the use of the emails from Der Spiegel. Question being why didn't UEFA seek to obtain the originals from Pinto or Der Spiegel.
UEFA asked DS for the emails. DS refused and told UEFA to go and ask Pinto directly
However the Portugese judge who is hearing Pinto's case had already said that no stolen material should be used by anyone anywhere in the world
UEFA then asked City for the emails and we didn't reply to their request (€10m fine for non co operation)
CAS were very damning of UEFA for not asking us again
The gutter press know their audience and pander to it.
We will never have the global fan base that the rags and dippers have. That said it's often about quality not quantity.
It hurts all of us when we see the club we love and support being dragged through the mud and being the subject of the utter vitriol levelled at us. Our owner, chairman etc do not deserve this particularly when you look at what they have done off the pitch and how one of the poorest areas in the country, let alone the north west, has been regenerated.
Whilst we cannot realistically hope to change the deep set agenda in the press anytime soon, surely we can ban one or two of the most vocal and spiteful hacks from our ground instead of wining and dining the fuckers.
I can't see that by doing so it could actually make matters worse and may send a message out that we can't change what you write about us but we are able to change how we deal with twats like you.
We will never have the global fan base that the rags and dippers have. That said it's often about quality not quantity.
It hurts all of us when we see the club we love and support being dragged through the mud and being the subject of the utter vitriol levelled at us. Our owner, chairman etc do not deserve this particularly when you look at what they have done off the pitch and how one of the poorest areas in the country, let alone the north west, has been regenerated.
Whilst we cannot realistically hope to change the deep set agenda in the press anytime soon, surely we can ban one or two of the most vocal and spiteful hacks from our ground instead of wining and dining the fuckers.
I can't see that by doing so it could actually make matters worse and may send a message out that we can't change what you write about us but we are able to change how we deal with twats like you.