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

mrbelfry said:
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
Click to expand...

Are you free for analogy coaching?
 
Tricky_Trev said:
I made a thread, amazingly it seems to have taken off and people like it. If you have a spare 3 mins, feel free to give it a read. Just my observations based on the facts of the 93 page report. No agenda bullshit

Click to expand...


What is this 'comfortable satisfaction' burden of proof they use? Surely if a CAS finding means they are accusing one side of breaking criminal law they should use the 'beyond reasonably doubt' burden of proof.

If they are only dealing with civil law cases 'in all probability' applies so where did they find 'comfortable satisfaction' from?
 
tornandfrayed said:
What is this 'comfortable satisfaction' burden of proof they use? Surely if a CAS finding means they are accusing one side of breaking criminal law they should use the 'beyond reasonably doubt' burden of proof.

If they are only dealing with civil law cases 'in all probability' applies so where did they find 'comfortable satisfaction' from?
Click to expand...

It's not a criminal case.
It's not even a legal court as most understand them.

They were assessing/arbitrating whether UEFA's conclusion was sound and supportable.

EDIT: However, they did bear in mind the weight of reputation of some witness evidence provided in deciding how satisfied they were. As an example, the need to have deceived/involved the big accountancy firms would have weighed significantly on that - it has no legal weight, but does have influence on likelihood.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
I made a thread, amazingly it seems to have taken off and people like it. If you have a spare 3 mins, feel free to give it a read. Just my observations based on the facts of the 93 page report. No agenda bullshit

Click to expand...

Read the thread, replied and retweeted. Asked Gary Lineker to comment but he won't . The hidden agenda and bias is on full view . Did Raheem win an award last year as a token due to his stance on Racism , i think so. Brilliant tweet, excellent work
 
I particularly like Tony Evans claims that
- City selected the chairman, as if that was all there was to it and UEFA had no say
- UEFA ALLOWED City to introduce evidence into CAS proceedings. Or, just maybe CAS allowed it as it was their proceedings.

It's misrepresentation of the facts, as per.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I particularly like Tony Evans claims that
- City selected the chairman, as if that was all there was to it and UEFA had no say
- UEFA ALLOWED City to introduce evidence into CAS proceedings. Or, just maybe CAS allowed it as it was their proceedings.

It's misrepresentation of the facts, as per.
Click to expand...
Evans is a glorified fanzine writer....
 
@projectriver:
Sorry to bother you on something minor, but you may be the best to assess this.

The use of the word 'majority' is common in describing the panel opinions.
Should anything be read into the meaning of that? Is it always 2-1, and does it preclude 3-0?
I can't search the doc to see if they ever use 'unanimous'.
 
As I see it from the media point of view their expectation was that we would get our just deserts from CAS and were amazed when exoneration appeared.
Surely their argent is with either or both CAS or those who convinced them of our guilt.

The decision has been made in our favour so perhaps refering the offending media to CAS or UEFA would suffice?
Unless of course we prefer to keep their click bait traps going. What will they do to attract customers without a City theme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.