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

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.

Could that have been just that there had not been a claim put to CAS from CFCB that they were related? That would then leave it like other stuff with City saying they're not related, and no-one saying they are.
 
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

I don't think I've seen it mentioned by anyone - I must have overlooked when it was!

I did wonder whether the report said 'unanimous' anywhere in it.
 
Groupthink incarnate. As soon as any press conference is over, their main topic of conversation is “So what’s the line, then?”
That and, as Tolmie points out, where they’re going boozing afterwards

Going back so many years, never ceased to amaze how little confidence they had to know what 'the line' was, needing to go cover all their own arses.

As a cub reporter, you soon find out that they only want to work with you when they have fuck all of their own.
 
Nailed it.
I’ve attended and in more recent years organised more news conferences than I can count and the football ones were always the very worst in terms of conduct and professionalism.
They were always by some margin the scruffiest bunch as well
Fucking hell, if a bloke from Longsight is calling them scruffy! No offence
 
Last edited:
Could that have been just that there had not been a claim put to CAS from CFCB that they were related? That would then leave it like other stuff with City saying they're not related, and no-one saying they are.
I doubt CFCB would claim that, although it seems that UEFA were trying to do so in 2014. If CFCB were to claim that Etihad, Etisalat and City were related parties then their whole argument about disguised owner investment falls flat on its face. CFCB's interest would be in showing they weren't. But it's irrelevant as there was no owner funding of these sponsorships.

They paid a load of money for lawyers, who lost the case, when they could have come to me and I'd have put them right.
 
Last edited:

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.