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

Prestwich_Blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Messages
51,023
Location
Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
Can anyone clear this up for me?

In the 2014 FFP sanction was the Etihad deal seen as related or unrelated party?
City claimed they were unrelated, which was challenged by UEFA but never resolved.

One of City's complaints to CAS was that UEFA completed its investigation before determining that. I can only assume that had the CFCB concluded that they were a related party (which City have always denied) the charges would have been baseless and therefore presumably not brought. But it seems they were judged at CAS as unrelated parties.
 

Rolee

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 Jun 2012
Messages
8,772
City claimed they were unrelated, which was challenged by UEFA but never resolved.

One of City's complaints to CAS was that UEFA completed its investigation before determining that. I can only assume that had the CFCB concluded that they were a related party (which City have always denied) the charges would have been baseless and therefore presumably not brought. But it seems they were judged at CAS as unrelated parties.
Thanks Colin
 

Centurions

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Sep 2012
Messages
11,380
Location
Not 100% sure at the moment...
City claimed they were unrelated, which was challenged by UEFA but never resolved.

One of City's complaints to CAS was that UEFA completed its investigation before determining that. I can only assume that had the CFCB concluded that they were a related party (which City have always denied) the charges would have been baseless and therefore presumably not brought. But it seems they were judged at CAS as unrelated parties.
I thought UEFA had accepted that they're not related? And even if not then surely if it's not resolved then that implies they accepted it anyway?

In fact CAS mentioned a couple of times in the recent findings that UEFA didn't follow up on queries. Seems to be a common failing of theirs.
 

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
970
On the subject of the panel chair, I’ve seen a few people posting that they would only intervene where the other two judges were not in agreement. So that, effectively, all their findings and decisions are by majority rather than unanimous. Do you know if this is the case? Some of the usual suspects have been making much of the fact that the wording of the judgement makes repeated reference to a majority
No the whole panel could concur. Notably the majority also applied to the comments (at least) on the cooperation charge. Strangely, few have mentioned that
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
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.