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

Prestwich_Blue said:
One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?
Click to expand...

You have to argue every possible avenue. What if the club had lost on the core argument about disguising equity funding, and hadn't tried all these other possible arguments to stop the case? It would be negligent in the extreme.

As much as people on here like to talk about "irrefutable" and "as we always said we would", we only won the main argument 2-1. Which means that a very respectable, independent & impartial legal mind decided we were guilty, and if one of them could, then it's not out of the question we could have lost.
 
domalino said:
Barca, Real and Bayern wouldn't be able to join. Their fans would knock it on the head and the presidents/boards wouldn't be able to override them.

So immediately half the appeal and the main drivers go.

United, City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal don't need one, we already have revenues that keep the other big clubs awake at night and the TV audience isn't going anywhere.

Juventus, Milan and Inter would like it, but Inter are barely feasible and Milan just isn't close at the moment.

PSG have no need because they control TV revenues in France via BeIn, and as pretty much the only club in a City of 12.5m people they don't need any more money.


There's really no need for a European Super League when we have the Champions League.
Click to expand...

Another negative that rarely gets an airing is that a European Super League is an attractive proposition when you are winning, or at least challenging. Imagine finishing in the bottom 5, three or four years running. I'm sure the fans of clubs, who have only ever known a top four spot in their respective leagues, would lose interest very quickly when their teams become cannon-fodder for those actually competing for the top spot.

However, utd becoming the G14 equivalent of Newcastle or Villa would be a sight to behold.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the legally aware (Stefan I think) comment about even the most obvious case was only 70 percent certain applied so we aimed for 30 percent on the ones we lost and kept the one we won as a 70 percent banker?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?
Click to expand...

You have to test all available avenues, and ultimately it strengthened our end position by having those elements challenged on record and shown that we got off on merit, not a technicality, but nonetheless it's due process to pursue all available avenues.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
One thing that struck me about what we now know about the CAS hearing. We'd always said that we'd welcome the chance to have our case heard by an independent body. Yet the first thing we did when we got that chance was try to rule the emails inadmissible (which would have led to the collapse of the case presumably). We then tried to claim that the settlement agreement shouldn't have been reopened (which would have rendered UEFA's case irrelevant) and that stuff was time-barred.

Apart from the time-barring argument, in which CAS came down closer to UEFA's position than ours, we lost all these. When we actually presented the core evidence about payments from Etihad, we won, as we always said we would. Why bother with the legal arguments about the other stuff then? Had we won the argument about admissibility of the emails, or the reopening of the 2014 settlement, then CAS would have had to drop the case and everyone would, with more justification in this case, claim we'd got off on a "technicality". I mean, a win's a win but surely we wanted to win in the way we did rather than that way?
Click to expand...
Colin, even with the slam dunk evidence we had, I reckon that CAS would have rulled against us 20% of the time because we're City and owned by an Arab. So best to try every avenue of escape.
 
domalino said:
You have to argue every possible avenue. What if the club had lost on the core argument about disguising equity funding, and hadn't tried all these other possible arguments to stop the case? It would be negligent in the extreme.

As much as people on here like to talk about "irrefutable" and "as we always said we would", we only won the main argument 2-1. Which means that a very respectable, independent & impartial legal mind decided we were guilty, and if one of them could, then it's not out of the question we could have lost.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence for a 2:1 victory? Don’t remember seeing a vote of this nature in the 93 page document. Is it just misinformation spread by press to sully the big win?
 
Brendan110_0 said:
Where is the evidence for a 2:1 victory? Don’t remember seeing a vote of this nature in the 93 page document. Is it just misinformation spread by press to sully the big win?
Click to expand...

The evidence is that the 93 page document repeatedly refers to a majority decision, which can only be 2-1. @projectriver said in his podcast that based on reading other decisions, if it wasn't a 2-1 vote they would have just said "The panel" not "The majority of the panel..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.