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

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yep. All they had to do was read the Open Skies document and it was all in there. Fucking idiots.

I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The likes of Delaney, Harris x 2 and the other dicks dismissed it out of hand as irrelevant

Oddly enough, that's exactly what we do with them.

 

[ForzaMancini]

I know each side chooses an arbitrator, what are the odds an arbitrator put forward would find against the side that selected them? Because how come UEFA’s chosen guy found in their favour on all points, even though the majority speak in such unequivocal terms about the lack of evidence especially on the Etihad charges? I thought they are still supposed to be impartial, so how does it actually work in reality? Is it a case of City/UEFA doing the research to find an arbitrator they believe will side with their interpretations or is there more to it than that?

 

[M18CTID]

I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.

Could be way off on this but the way I see it is that 1) City couldn’t foresee all those years ago that someone would hack us and obtain our e-mails
2) We weren’t guilty of what we were being accused of and had proof of no wrongdoing to back that up, hence why we kept arguing the point. Plus wouldn’t it have looked a teeny bit suspicious if we’d changed tack in the wake of the investigation being opened and suddenly accepted that Etihad was a related party after all?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

He wrote an award winning book about the Mercer era shortly before his death but I’d expect that as the industry changed he knew which way the wind was blowing

I recall hearing about the book, yes.
I guess I never saw his better stuff.

 

[JRockBlues]

If you haven’t already, I’d highly recommend the novel/film “Thank You for smoking” which satirises the PR shills for the tobacco, alcohol and firearms industry in the US

Or better still read the book that the film was based on by Christopher Buckley.

 

[LongsightM13]

Or better still read the book that the film was based on by Christopher Buckley.

Buckley is brilliant

 

[jimbo101]

I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.

whilst being a related party would have meant we couldn’t be accused of disguising owner investment, it would have left us open to a UEFA assessment of fair value.

also, give that CAS has ruled that Etihad, Aabar & Etisalat are NOT related parties, does that not point to the 2014 settlement agreement being flawed, in that UEFA deemed them to be related parties and reduced the income attributable from some of them?

all water under the bridge but would mean UEFA got it wrong AGAIN.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

whilst being a related party would have meant we couldn’t be accused of disguising owner investment, it would have left us open to a UEFA assessment of fair value.

also, give that CAS has ruled that Etihad, Aabar & Etisalat are NOT related parties, does that not point to the 2014 settlement agreement being flawed, in that UEFA deemed them to be related parties and reduced the income attributable from some of them?

all water under the bridge but would mean UEFA got it wrong AGAIN.

It was generally accepted that Etihad was fair value. Not sure about Etisalat but the worst case scenario was they'd have reduced our income by a few million. I've no idea if they made any adjustment to our first FFP assessment to be honest. Made little difference if they did.

The whole related party issue would only be relevant if we were claiming they were and UEFA were arguing they weren't. Which we weren't.

 

[KS55]

I simply don't understand whty City were arguing the point and claiming abuse of process because the CFCB hadn't finished investigating it though. It makes no sense at all. City had argued all along, and continued to do so at CAS, that they weren't related parties to ADUG. I think they're right on that point but that meant that they were open to a charge of disguised owner investment, which wouldn't stick if they had been related.

It's like arguing that you were at the scene of a murder knowing the police weren't sure, then complaining when you're charged with the murder on the basis of your insistence.

I wondered about this too. City's denial that they were related can only be explained by possible future sponsorship emanating fron AD which City do not want subjected to the fair value test. Maybe new sponsors or existing sponsors increasing their commitment.