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

Prestwich_Blue said:
Point them to this article. They might struggle as it doesn't have a lot of pictures though. He's a barrister and not, as far as I'm aware, a City fan.

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-v-uefa-rubbish-in-rubbish-out
Click to expand...
I haven't been able to post my views since publication of the report. I'll also face difficulties in posting for some time to come (this is a one-off contribution and I won't be able to respond to replies to it).

But the conclusion to that article, especially the closing paragraphs, is the ultimate takeaway from CAS. This is all the more valuable as it comes from a legal professional who's (presumably) neutral in terms of fan allegiance.

I also note that CAS has been called not fit for purpose by some of our detractors in recent days. Not so. What's shown itself up as most unfit for purpose in this saga is the British football media.

City were charged with inflating revenue under sponsorship contracts whose fair value wasn't contested by UEFA, under which the relevant services had been provided, and which were underwritten by organs of the Abu Dhabi Emirati government.

All of this was in the public domain. And it showed, as many of us on here repeated ad nauseam, that MCFC would highly likely prevail before CAS unless UEFA possessed evidence hitherto unknown to us. Of course, they ultimately didn't.

Yet the British football media unanimously gloried in the prospect of our demise from the publication of Der Spiegel's revelations onwards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall one media outlet (and I mean literally not a single fucking one) ever at any stage suggesting that City may prevail.

It was all in the emails, they gloated. Well, chaps, take a look at what the CAS says about that. Should hardly have required the Brain of fucking Britain to work it out, should it.

Now, your level of performance has been truly execrable on an objective level from any body of professionals with pretensions to even bare adequacy as a group. One issue is that we find football writers trying to grapple with complex issues of finance and law when they're, perfectly understandably, lamentably ill-equipped to do so - even those who claim expertise in the relevant areas. But there's a deluge of cases where the ineptitude is bound in with bad faith: they're also desperate for us to fail.

Well, it isn't failure, is it? Quite the contrary. On the main point, the one that matters, the one on which UEFA's AC tried to hang an extended ban, it was rather emphatic: as has been said elsewhere, count the usage of terms such as 'no evidence' in the report. Anyway, try to convert the result into football terms and you're probably looking at something like 4-0.

By all means indulge your incompetence and bias by trawling through the rest of the report, the flim-flam, for out-of-context phrases you can use to discredit City for the delectation of your clickbait sheep. Go big on the barely relevant obstruction point if you want to. We're happy to have obstructed an investigation mired in illegally obtained materials, prejudicial conduct, and vicious and self-interested third-party lobbying, all egged on by vacuous press cheerleading.

The thing is, you've shown us what you are now, haven't you? We knew all along, of course, but you used to try and gaslight us. You reported on us fairly and we were too thin-skinned to see it, you used to say. That won't wash any longer, will it? Act as PR shills for our enemies in the way you seem to want to. Fine. Don't expect a reaction from us other than utterly fucking despising you for it, though.

A final mention for David Conn, the self-appointed conscience of football. I long regarded his professional success as an example of Emperor's new clothes syndrome as others queued up to praise him extravagantly. I did, however, respect him for what seemed to be an ethical approach and genuine integrity.

What a sad state of affairs, then, to see his tendentious output over the last few months. It truly rivals the worst imaginable from any bigoted, comically biased, bottom-feeding hack scum that's out there. Still, chin up, David. You can always trot off back to FC United and help your mate Walsh be the exemplar of soul in modern football. Oh.

OK, maybe The Guardian will let you write a bit for the front end of the paper. Oh, no, another no-go. You did those stories on Orgreave a while back and they were fucking dreadful so you were sent back to the toy section. Looks as though you've found your level, then, doesn't it. As have City, however much you and your journo mates wish it were otherwise.
 
petrusha said:
I haven't been able to post my views since publication of the report. I'll also face difficulties in posting for some time to come (this is a one-off contribution and I won't be able to respond to replies to it).

But the conclusion to that article, especially the closing paragraphs, is the ultimate takeaway from CAS. This is all the more valuable as it comes from a legal professional who's (presumably) neutral in terms of fan allegiance.

I also note that CAS has been called not fit for purpose by some of our detractors in recent days. Not so. What's shown itself up as most unfit for purpose in this saga is the British football media.

City were charged with inflating revenue under sponsorship contracts whose fair value wasn't contested by UEFA, under which the relevant services had been provided, and which were underwritten by organs of the Abu Dhabi Emirati government.

All of this was in the public domain. And it showed, as many of us on here repeated ad nauseam, that MCFC would highly likely prevail before CAS unless UEFA possessed evidence hitherto unknown to us. Of course, they ultimately didn't.

Yet the British football media unanimously gloried in the prospect of our demise from the publication of Der Spiegel's revelations onwards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall one media outlet (and I mean literally not a single fucking one) ever at any stage suggesting that City may prevail.

It was all in the emails, they gloated. Well, chaps, take a look at what the CAS says about that. Should hardly have required the Brain of fucking Britain to work it out, should it.

Now, your level of performance has been truly execrable on an objective level from any body of professionals with pretensions to even bare adequacy as a group. One issue is that we find football writers trying to grapple with complex issues of finance and law when they're, perfectly understandably, lamentably ill-equipped to do so - even those who claim expertise in the relevant areas. But there's a deluge of cases where the ineptitude is bound in with bad faith: they're also desperate for us to fail.

Well, it isn't failure, is it? Quite the contrary. On the main point, the one that matters, the one on which UEFA's AC tried to hang an extended ban, it was rather emphatic: as has been said elsewhere, count the usage of terms such as 'no evidence' in the report. Anyway, try to convert the result into football terms and you're probably looking at something like 4-0.

By all means indulge your incompetence and bias by trawling through the rest of the report, the flim-flam, for out-of-context phrases you can use to discredit City for the delectation of your clickbait sheep. Go big on the barely relevant obstruction point if you want to. We're happy to have obstructed an investigation mired in illegally obtained materials, prejudicial conduct, and vicious and self-interested third-party lobbying, all egged on by vacuous press cheerleading.

The thing is, you've shown us what you are now, haven't you? We knew all along, of course, but you used to try and gaslight us. You reported on us fairly and we were too thin-skinned to see it, you used to say. That won't wash any longer, will it? Act as PR shills for our enemies in the way you seem to want to. Fine. Don't expect a reaction from us other than utterly fucking despising you for it, though.

A final mention for David Conn, the self-appointed conscience of football. I long regarded his professional success as an example of Emperor's new clothes syndrome as others queued up to praise him extravagantly. I did, however, respect him for what seemed to be an ethical approach and genuine integrity.

What a sad state of affairs, then, to see his tendentious output over the last few months. It truly rivals the worst imaginable from any bigoted, comically biased, bottom-feeding hack scum that's out there. Still, chin up, David. You can always trot off back to FC United and help your mate Walsh be the exemplar of soul in modern football. Oh.

OK, maybe The Guardian will let you write a bit for the front end of the paper. Oh, no, another no-go. You did those stories on Orgreave a while back and they were fucking dreadful so you were sent back to the toy section. Looks as though you've found your level, then, doesn't it. As have City, however much you and your journo mates wish it were otherwise.
Click to expand...
Stupendous
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
@projectriver not doing a write up. He has no need. I've not said it recently but thanks for your brilliant work on this. Saw yesterday that some on here yesterday were having a pop as well. Pathetic.




From the linked article the final section is brilliant and particularly the last paragraph I've bolded:

Significance of the CAS Decision

Following the release of the CAS Decision news reporters and fans were decrying “the end of FFP”. The CAS Decision does not signify that. More particularly, despite the CAS Panel’s comments on the drafting of the limitation period stated in article 37 PRCFCB, there is nothing negative stated about UEFA’s CLFFPR or its procedures. The CAS Decision, if anything, is a rousing call for clubs to give greater support and cooperation to the CFCB when it is the subject of an investigation or charge under the CLFFPR and PRCFCB.

On the point of article 37 PRCFCB – although UEFA will not see it this way considering the overall outcome – it is welcomed that there is now some clear authority on the interpretation of the same. Whilst I would agree with Professor Jack Anderson’s comment that the CAS Panel’s interpretation of article 37 PRCFCB included ‘no reference to previous CAS cases, Swiss law or comparative law’, the interpretation provided by the CAS Panel, in this author’s opinion, is fitting. UEFA may adopt such an interpretation in future editions of the PRCFCB, or may draft a limitation clause to reflect the AC Decision and UEFA’s submissions to the CAS Panel (i.e. that time stops on the date the IC opens its investigation, not when a referral decision is issued as decided by the CAS Panel).

Nevertheless, in this author’s opinion, having now read the CAS Decision, this entire dispute appears over-hyped and demonstrative of an element of desperation from UEFA to pin a charge on MCFC. The absence of cogent evidence from UEFA / the CFCB is astounding and this author is in disbelief that the AC Decision, let alone the Referral Decision, was made on the basis of the evidence available. Neither the CAS nor the purpose and aim of the CLFFPR should be undermined for the CFCB’s decision to proceed with a case that could not be properly proved. Admittedly, however, one upshot of that could be that clubs will be even more vigilant in ensuring their compliance with the CLFFPR to avoid being ardently pursued by UEFA.
Click to expand...

I asked someone to read this legal opinion on Twitter and got this response:
“I’ve read it and I respectfully disagree. The author makes almost no mention of City’s failure to cooperate and no mention of the futility in trying to investigate corruption necessarily involving third parties.”
I put him right on non cooperation and its irrelevance to the main charge and I don’t even know what he’s on about with the second bit.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Point them to this article. They might struggle as it doesn't have a lot of pictures though. He's a barrister and not, as far as I'm aware, a City fan.

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-v-uefa-rubbish-in-rubbish-out
Click to expand...
I'm curious PB, when will someone in the media look behind the outcome and question where this stems from, by that I mean the cartel clubs? That would be real journalism instead of Sabre rattling, there is a good story beneath all this if they can be arsed or have the bollocks to dig a little.
 
The Colonel said:
I asked someone to read this legal opinion on Twitter and got this response:
“I’ve read it and I respectfully disagree. The author makes almost no mention of City’s failure to cooperate and no mention of the futility in trying to investigate corruption necessarily involving third parties.”
I put him right on non cooperation and its irrelevance to the main charge and I don’t even know what he’s on about with the second bit.
Click to expand...

making up an accusation to live in their own little world where we're guilty of something.
 
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.