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

[Chris in London]

If the case was de novo, why was the non-cooperation charge not rejected as the non-cooperation happened during the IC part of the CFCB process, which was the same part of the process as the leaks occurred? I know the reasons that CAS gave for supporting the charge but I couldn't see why it was relevant in a de novo case.

It is 'worrisome' that the CAS decision to allow the use of criminally obtained documents validates the publishing of stolen emails in order that they can be used against certain clubs in sport cases such as this and as a result their decision could encourage criminality in the form of illegal hacking.

GDM is right about this. The origin of the “de novo” doctrine is in fact appeals in small claims court (hence GDMs particular expertise). The Judge hearing the appeal is faced with a stack of papers about what has already happened in the case and what the first decision was. Thinking ‘fuck it, I can’t be arsed reading all that, I’d sooner get pissed again,’ he takes the view that he will just ignore everything that has happened before and start from scratch. To make this sound more intellectually robust, this is given a Latin name, “de novo.” The original English name, “I don’t give a shit what anyone else made of this previously” lacks that je ne sais quoi but is probably a clearer description of what the doctrine means in practice.

 

[SilverFox2]

I don't think there is any basis for thinking they don't see City as a major threat. Isn't that the point, they fear the disruption that has happened and which could happen. Even more so as credible third party investors join the party.

I think they have feared our owner because of his financial acumen which dispelled the fallacy that running and profiting from a football sector was special.

They have had to simply tarnish us with lies and targeted rules to halt a proper business plan that covered up their fear of admitting what a proper investment plan can do.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The origin of the “de novo” doctrine is in fact appeals in small claims court (hence GDMs particular expertise).

*blushes*

 

[kaz7]

Is this the same article as the one in Goal.com?
https://www.goal.com/en-cm/news/bay...y-overturn-uefa-ban/rvzxmzfwgn5313dwbi50hfb5h

"Pep Guardiola’s side had expected to sit out the next two years of competition but were found to have exploited a loophole in UEFA’s regulations that meant this aspect of their suspension was annulled, while a €30 million (£27m/$35m) fine was reduced to €10m (£9m/$11m)."

I don't get it? What loophole did we exploit??
Getting exonerated by CAS is not a "loophole", I would have thought..

The media don't have an agenda though

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

the loophole being doing things correctly.

 

[Gazza]

I think they have feared our owner because of his financial acumen which dispelled the fallacy that running and profiting from a football sector was special.

They have had to simply tarnish us with lies and targeted rules to halt a proper business plan that covered up their fear of admitting what a proper investment plan can do.

The City Group have clubs all over the world - at least one on each continent, United have a stadium with a leaky roof.

 

[chedinho]

All theoretically possible but I doubt it. I think it was 2-1 in City. And they very much wanted the reader to know

It’s worrying that someone actually voted in uefa favour if that’s the case.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It’s worrying that someone actually voted in uefa favour if that’s the case.

We don't know what the level of dissent from the majority view was. It could have been as mild as "Well I'm not happy to say I'm comfortably satisfied that City did (or didn't do) X", which is a kind of 'Don't know' or it could be "I'm comfortably satisfied that City did disguise equity funding as sponsorship revenue despite what you two think". That's more of a 'I'm convinced City are cheats' end of the spectrum.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

In reply to halfcenturyup. Putting myself in Ceferin shoes I would say something l likethis " So you want to a European Super League. Well that's fine by UEFA but you are barred from competing in any of you domestic competitions,plus any of UEFA'S comps. Another point of you want to return to your own domestic comps, you must start in their lowest league available and subject to all FFP'S that may apply in that league. If this means that uncannily spend a certain amount of money so be it.

 

[chedinho]

We don't know what the level of dissent from the majority view was. It could have been as mild as "Well I'm not happy to say I'm comfortably satisfied that City did (or didn't do) X", which is a kind of 'Don't know' or it could be "I'm comfortably satisfied that City did disguise equity funding as sponsorship revenue despite what you two think". That's more of a 'I'm convinced City are cheats' end of the spectrum.

I would be shocked and worried if someone did actually vote against that evidence.