The Colonel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,038
..and why doesn’t he tackle Harris on his weird ramblings?
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
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 10,208
The question I am asking myself now is were we right to not cooperate with the UEFA investigation? I can certainly understand the motivation to refusing to give evidence to a fabricated enquiry knowing you can always go to CAS and give them a good kicking. But we have allowed the narrative to be twisted to read we have “broken FFP rules” (which should say refused to cooperate with a fake FFP investigation). If we had shown the evidence to UEFA in the first place they couldn’t have punished us (even if they wanted to) and all this cr@p would never happened.
The question I am asking myself now is were we right to not cooperate with the UEFA investigation? I can certainly understand the motivation to refusing to give evidence to a fabricated enquiry knowing you can always go to CAS and give them a good kicking. But we have allowed the narrative to be twisted to read we have “broken FFP rules” (which should say refused to cooperate with a fake FFP investigation). If we had shown the evidence to UEFA in the first place they couldn’t have punished us (even if they wanted to) and all this cr@p would never happened.
It wasn't an investigation it was a witch hunt, City were 100% right to keep their cards close to their chest if they thought they were innocent.
Remember this is an organisation that changed the rules to suit their own devious means, I wouldn't show them fcuk all and make them look silly ****s in court like we have done,
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
Kicking off about doctored emails won't play because we provided most of the emails and CAS found there wasn't a huge difference in content when compared with what we provided.
From what i can gather UEFA tried to use the emails to establish a pattern or template of behaviour that made us guilty. They are essentially a red herring - CAS stated that only evidence we actually did the things that UEFA alleged would be adequate to prove UEFA's case. City and UEFA agreed that the emails were sufficient to launch an investigation but CAS decided they wouldn't be appropriate as evidence. CAS even applied a lower standard of proof than City asked for. UEFA could present no evidence except an insinuation that the two payments Pearce mentioned re Etihad when shown in the accounts and demonstrated an attempt to hide owner investment. My guess is that this is the evidence that Tony Evans refers to. UEFA also tried to infer something dodgy was going on based on the order of those payments.
We pretty much lost on every arguement we presented except demonstrating that we hadn't hidden owner investment. We didn't even need to do that because UEFA didn't establish that we did.
The emails are only relevant in that they were grounds to open an investigation. The crux of the matter is that there is no evidence that a crime was even committed.
It is the equivalent of you saying you were going to kill your mate. The police arresting you for murder and you turning up at court with your mate who has not been murdered. Ah but the police say you had a knife and you could have used that to murder him. Sure but here is my mate not murdered and he's actually my alibi because on the night you said i murdered him we were at the pub together. Oh so you were with him on the night he was murdered! Guilty!! No because he's not murdered. Well can you tell us what you did with the murder weapon? Nope. See he won't help us. He guilty
For future reference i am available at short notice for CAS 3 or to workshop with Ken Loach to develop the movie
From what i can gather UEFA tried to use the emails to establish a pattern or template of behaviour that made us guilty. They are essentially a red herring - CAS stated that only evidence we actually did the things that UEFA alleged would be adequate to prove UEFA's case. City and UEFA agreed that the emails were sufficient to launch an investigation but CAS decided they wouldn't be appropriate as evidence. CAS even applied a lower standard of proof than City asked for. UEFA could present no evidence except an insinuation that the two payments Pearce mentioned re Etihad when shown in the accounts and demonstrated an attempt to hide owner investment. My guess is that this is the evidence that Tony Evans refers to. UEFA also tried to infer something dodgy was going on based on the order of those payments.
We pretty much lost on every arguement we presented except demonstrating that we hadn't hidden owner investment. We didn't even need to do that because UEFA didn't establish that we did.
The emails are only relevant in that they were grounds to open an investigation. The crux of the matter is that there is no evidence that a crime was even committed.
It is the equivalent of you saying you were going to kill your mate. The police arresting you for murder and you turning up at court with your mate who has not been murdered. Ah but the police say you had a knife and you could have used that to murder him. Sure but here is my mate not murdered and he's actually my alibi because on the night you said i murdered him we were at the pub together. Oh so you were with him on the night he was murdered! Guilty!! No because he's not murdered. Well can you tell us what you did with the murder weapon? Nope. See he won't help us. He guilty
For future reference i am available at short notice for CAS 3 or to workshop with Ken Loach to develop the movie
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Some mad salt from these journalists.
Some of them are definitely mentally ill.
Some of them are definitely mentally ill.
Mancity1980
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Messages
- 10,208
Great points mate, however the biased media is now able to run with statements like city failed FFP rules, which although it is a play on words they wouldn’t be able to do if we gave them the evidence in the first place.It wasn't an investigation it was a witch hunt, City were 100% right to keep their cards close to their chest if they thought they were innocent.
Remember this is an organisation that changed the rules to suit their own devious means, I wouldn't show them fcuk all and make them look silly ****s in court like we have done,
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The only explanation that stands up to any meaningful objective scrutiny is that he’s developed an inveterate coke and brass addiction in recent years and has turned on the club he used to support in order to feed his habit. Also explains his Ineffectual and lightweight writing, as he’s usually clucking when he’s composing his pitiful articles.Conn is probably being paid by someone maybe Qatar to Keep writing this nonsense. He’s obsessed.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Or mad for the gear.Some mad salt from these journalists.
Some of them are definitely mentally ill.
Blumooniac
Well-Known Member
Well done to everyone giving Tony Evans a rather uncomfortable evening on Twitter. The Uber blurt and the Apologist in Chief for all that loathsome cult's misdemeanours seems to have done a runner. Great reading.