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

[MillionMilesAway]

Why didn’t they investigate #LFCHackingscandal even though the FA said they weren’t going to, as it was too historic??

I think this is cross-purposes.

The scouting access got a payment made, FA said it was too old.

Over us, the FA acknowledged that they were looking at it, but have made no further comment on the matter. It's likely that they were waiting for UEFA/CAS to end and see what evidence there was, and it's quite likely that they will then invoke the timeframe thing as well.

The FA have only had a few days since the full CAS judgement came out, and wouldn't want to clash the cup final. Them not having said anything isn't automatically negative.

 

[BillyShears]

I would be amazed. Long way to go before we have normal relations with Uefa.

I've noticed that being on Bluemoon (this thread in particular) people feed each others' conspiracy theories to the point where in my opinion you lose sight a little bit of the reality of the situation. Go back to Soriano's interview after the 2 year ban was announced. He talked about having friends at UEFA. City's issues aren't going to be with the governing bodies moving forward (I'd argue even this entire Football Leaks nonsense wasn't pushed by UEFA), City's issues are with their rivals pushing for things and with the media trying to smear them.

As I say, I think that we'll have a rep on the ECA very soon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my opinion is for now.

 

[chesterbells]

I've noticed that being on Bluemoon (this thread in particular) people feed each others' conspiracy theories to the point where in my opinion you lose sight a little bit of the reality of the situation. Go back to Soriano's interview after the 2 year ban was announced. He talked about having friends at UEFA. City's issues aren't going to be with the governing bodies moving forward (I'd argue even this entire Football Leaks nonsense wasn't pushed by UEFA), City's issues are with their rivals pushing for things and with the media trying to smear them.

As I say, I think that we'll have a rep on the ECA very soon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my opinion is for now.

Fully agree.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've noticed that being on Bluemoon (this thread in particular) people feed each others' conspiracy theories to the point where in my opinion you lose sight a little bit of the reality of the situation. Go back to Soriano's interview after the 2 year ban was announced. He talked about having friends at UEFA. City's issues aren't going to be with the governing bodies moving forward (I'd argue even this entire Football Leaks nonsense wasn't pushed by UEFA), City's issues are with their rivals pushing for things and with the media trying to smear them.

As I say, I think that we'll have a rep on the ECA very soon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my opinion is for now.

Correct. As for the last sentence, I think we should have focused on establishing ourselves in the main corridors of power before what I see as the vanity project of CFG. Any benefits that CFG brings are, in my view, insignificant compared to the ones that having a seat at the top table would have brought us.

 

[KS55]

I've noticed that being on Bluemoon (this thread in particular) people feed each others' conspiracy theories to the point where in my opinion you lose sight a little bit of the reality of the situation. Go back to Soriano's interview after the 2 year ban was announced. He talked about having friends at UEFA. City's issues aren't going to be with the governing bodies moving forward (I'd argue even this entire Football Leaks nonsense wasn't pushed by UEFA), City's issues are with their rivals pushing for things and with the media trying to smear them.

As I say, I think that we'll have a rep on the ECA very soon. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what my opinion is for now.

We will just have to wait and see. I agree we have some friends at Uefa, such as Ceferin. My doubts are whether he can win the argument while G14 clubs have so much influence there.
As for the ECA, G14 have captured about three quarters of the seats on the exec committee. Think it was Martin Samuels who asked, ironically, why Woodward spent so much time in the corridors of the ECA.
I dont believe in a conspiracy, rather that certain clubs will always act together in their own interests even to the point where football is damaged. See the effect of FFP on debt growth and competitiveness.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

The loophole we exploited was UEFA not being able to show to the comfortable satisfaction of UEFA the we had done what we were accused of doing.

Yes, this is the scandal of City getting the benefit of the doubt just because UEFA didn't have any evidence of wrong doing. A technicality pure and simple.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I dont believe in a conspiracy, rather that certain clubs will always act together in their own interests even to the point where football is damaged.

How is that not a conspiracy?

Acting in bad faith, with others, in furtherance of a common purpose, is a conspiracy surely?

 

[KS55]

Correct. As for the last sentence, I think we should have focused on establishing ourselves in the main corridors of power before what I see as the vanity project of CFG. Any benefits that CFG brings are, in my view, insignificant compared to the ones that having a seat at the top table would have brought us.

CFG is not a vanity project! It is an attempt to creart a global entertainment group with football at its core, but with much wider elements. Soriano has persued that dream for many years. He proposed it to Barca, but they turned him down. Serendipity presented him with another chance when ADUG bought City. Hence he moved here.
Agreed, short term City may have been better off concentrating on ourselves, but long term CFG will provide us with a huge platform for development. See Silverlake, eg.

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

De novo is a fresh rehearing of the evidence with new evidence also being permitted as part of that decision. Each party brings whatever evidence it wishes to the hearing (subsisting and ‘new’) and providing it’s admissible, it’s up to the tribunal to attach the appropriate weight and make a determination upon without being bound by the previous decision and its findings. The inclusion of that evidence is not inconsistent with de novo proceedings.

In terms of the second paragraph, it would be equally worrisome (for me at least) if stolen emails were never admissible in any circumstances. How they were obtained, for what purpose, their relevance and probative value should also be taken into account. Absolute rules of evidence are usually contrary to the interests of justice imo.

Thanks M'Lud ;)

 

[BringBackSwales]

If not providing certain info to your leaky judge, jury and executioner is a severe breach, how severe a breach is it to claim £50m a year of stadium planning consultancy fees for 2 consecutive years for a new stadium that never happened? Not at all serious I assume