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

tolmie's hairdoo said:
I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!
Click to expand...
Fines in UK courts are levied on people’s earnings not on a ‘going rate’. They are split into Bands and then a percentage of weekly income is levied.
In some ways the CAS fine seems fair enough to me. Forget what people think of UEFA for a minute but they are not a police force and only have the co-operation of the clubs as their principle way of investigating. I understand why City wanted to put this to bed via CAS but that’s not the way to go for a club that has never been investigated or persecuted before and I suspect that the fine was more to do with CAS saying this ban probably wouldn’t have happened had you shared with UEFA what you’ve shared with us and was thus a way of encouraging future actions to be sorted out much quicker.
 
domalino said:
I have to say, even for them, David Conn and Tony Evans' attempts to undermine CAS are pretty incredible.

They are both trying to advance the narrative that City "chose" the president of the Panel Rui Botica Santos, and that McDougall was compromised.

There is no way anyone who has read the award can come to that conclusion in good faith. To do so is not just to say City and UEFA are corrupt, not just to say McDougall and Botica Santos are impartial, but also that the entire organisation at CAS is corrupt because they vet every nomination.




On the same date, 3 April 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that pursuant to Article R54 CAS Code, following consultation with the Parties and the co-arbitrators, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appointed Mr Rui Botica Santos as President of the Panel

Article 54 is as follows -

If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel following nomination of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the parties shall only be deemed appointed after confirmation by the President of the Division. Before proceeding with such confirmation, the President of the Division shall ensure that the arbitrators comply with the requirements of Article R33.

Article 33 is as follows -

Every arbitrator shall be and remain impartial and independent of the parties and shall immediately disclose any circumstances which may affect her/his independence with respect to any of the parties.
Every arbitrator shall appear on the list drawn up by the ICAS in accordance with the Statutes which are part of this Code, shall have a good command of the language of the arbitration and shall be available as required to complete the arbitration expeditiously.


​
So what's actually happened is -

1) City suggest a president.

2) UEFA indicate they would accept that president.

3) The deputy president of Arbitration selects that president of the panel after consultation with both parties and both arbiters already selected and after confirming they are fully independent as per. Article 33.

​
There is no way you can honestly describe that process as City picking 2 judges.
Click to expand...

Next they'll be releasing their own version of Cluedo, it was the President, in the boardroom, with the brown envelope !

And they call us paranoid and delusional.
 
domalino said:
I have to say, even for them, David Conn and Tony Evans' attempts to undermine CAS are pretty incredible.

They are both trying to advance the narrative that City "chose" the president of the Panel Rui Botica Santos, and that McDougall was compromised.

There is no way anyone who has read the award can come to that conclusion in good faith. To do so is not just to say City and UEFA are corrupt, not just to say McDougall and Botica Santos are impartial, but also that the entire organisation at CAS is corrupt because they vet every nomination.




On the same date, 3 April 2020, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that pursuant to Article R54 CAS Code, following consultation with the Parties and the co-arbitrators, the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appointed Mr Rui Botica Santos as President of the Panel

Article 54 is as follows -

If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel following nomination of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the parties shall only be deemed appointed after confirmation by the President of the Division. Before proceeding with such confirmation, the President of the Division shall ensure that the arbitrators comply with the requirements of Article R33.

Article 33 is as follows -

Every arbitrator shall be and remain impartial and independent of the parties and shall immediately disclose any circumstances which may affect her/his independence with respect to any of the parties.
Every arbitrator shall appear on the list drawn up by the ICAS in accordance with the Statutes which are part of this Code, shall have a good command of the language of the arbitration and shall be available as required to complete the arbitration expeditiously.


​
So what's actually happened is -

1) City suggest a president.

2) UEFA indicate they would accept that president.

3) The deputy president of Arbitration selects that president of the panel after consultation with both parties and both arbiters already selected and after confirming they are fully independent as per. Article 33.

​
There is no way you can honestly describe that process as City picking 2 judges.
Click to expand...
fkin disgusting isnt it. Those same scousers were complaining about how the press/media skewed the whole hillsborough truth and here they are spouting lies.

I have no sympathy at all for those twats, it all eroded away once they started behaving EXACTLY like the (lying?) headlines written about them.

In fact isnt he ripe for court action? I mean it's directly misinforming people surely!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Let's look at it another way. Der Spiegel publish 6 emails, one of which has been doctored and all of which have been stolen. We always refused to acknowledge the veracity of those emails, on the grounds that they were stolen. We clearly felt, on legal advice, that we had good grounds for refusing to co-operate on the grounds of "fruit of the poisoned tree".

Let's suppose that Der Spiegel had published some completely fictitious emails, including one allegedly from Sheikh Mansour saying he'd pay the money for the Etihad sponsorship. UEFA arrive at the Etihad demanding to investigate. We could say the emails are fictitious and they'd say "Prove it". To do so, we'd have to let them have access to all our emails in order to prove that the ones they have were fictitious and simply didn't exist. It's a complete nonsense.

The emails were stolen. Der Spiegel published them and claimed public interest although they knew some related to a period either prior to FFP and we know now that some relate to periods that were time-barred and/or covered by our 2014 settlement agreement. We had every right not to co-operate, otherwise it sets a precedent that anyone can manufacture an email, get it published in the media then demand access to legitimate evidence on the basis of that fake email.

I'm convinced the club will take this further. Clause 56 is written so widely that it's almost impossible not to fall foul of it even for the most minor infractions. We had a legitimate right not to co-operate in my opinion and we should defend that.
Click to expand...

Some of this is addressed by CAS. They even note that UEFA called them Leaked Emails and we called them Criminally Obtained Emails. Both City and UEFA acknowledged they were grounds to open an investigation.

Your example i think is incorrect. We wouldn't have to open up our entire mail server to UEFA to demonstrate emails were fabricrated. It would prove nothing anyway because emails can be deleted. If we said the emails were a complete fiction then UEFA would have had to prove they existed. We confirmed their existence by saying they were stolen and out of context.

CAS dealt with the admissibility of the emails and I think (although I'd need to reread) that they would have allowed them but as we provided most of them (I think there was 1 we didn't but again I'm open to correction) and the content would be dealt with by witness testimony then the issue of admissibility of the stolen documents became irrelevant - we provided everything that was in the stolen documents.

CAS also discussed Clause 56 in relation to the reasonableness of what UEFA requested - that's why there was no failure to co-operate charge related to providing copies of Etihads accounts for example. I think your show UEFA every single email example would fall foul of that - UEFA might still charge us but I doubt CAS would find for them in that respect.

The failure to co-operate stuff seems to be mostly limited to City holding back information from the AC that we presented at CAS. I think we tried to argue about the leaks and due process and CAS weren't overly impressed that that demonstrated a bias - for example the leaks occurred after the IC had made the decisions - so whilst they were concerning didn't have an impact on decision making. I think CAS also argued that the AC represented a fresh start but CAS definitely did so what happened previously became irrelevant. I think they said UEFA's requests for information were reasonable and should have been adhered to or explanations offered as to why they couldn't be.

CAS have to come down hard on that otherwise the UEFA process becomes obsolete - CAS can't undermine that. It can criticise specific instances BUT can't just dismiss its importance. That is what effectively would have happened if they allowed us to get away with not talking to UEFA - there is a process that has to be adhered too. The issue isn't the emails per se but our failure to engage with the AC that would have given the appropriate context - CAS implied pretty strongly that if we'd co-operated then the AC wouldn't have charged us. We said they were out of context. AC said show us the context. We said nah. In essence it was our own fault the AC charged. CAS also noted we have a complaint in with UEFA's ethics guys about the process so I think said a lot unsaid because of that.

In any event this is lots of words. The emails are a sideshow except to say City didn't provide UEFA with the context we said was missing. I think we were probably justified in being awkward (which we definitely were) because sensitive commercial information just wouldn't have been safe with the AC - but that's a question for the ethics guys and not CAS.

Of course I'm happy to bow to your greater experience of this
 
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.