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

Having read what he said in German (I can't play the original interview video) I suspect the UK press are spinning it as critical of CAS, especially those outlets saying things like "Former Bayern Munich president Uli Hoeness has criticized the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for overturning Manchester City's two-year Champions League ban."

He hasn't criticised CAS. it's criticism of UEFA for acting against us with "no substantive evidence". My translation: "If the CAS judges thought UEFA had acted badly there's no surprise at the outcome."

"Obviously UEFA's reasoning was just weak."

I can't see a basis in the original for "we must do with Manchester City" except for the possibility of meeting them in the semi-final.

Don't blame Hoeness. It's our press again.

Sounds entirely likely. Standard practice to inflame people, and it works.
 
None of the three liverpool goals were contentious. City had a goal disallowed for a very dubious offside, but the linesman gave that.
What were his actual stitch ups.

Salah was offside when the ball was first played to him just inside City's half in the build up the first goal. Even the BT Sport commentators picked it up and the replay showed this was the case.
 
It may have been spotted and answered before, but can someone answer this about the CAS judgement pdf?? On page 21 it has the ”Submissions of the parties”, but on page 22, it starts with point 6...what’s happened with points 1 to 5?? Here’s the link to it... https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf
I assume they didn't deem 1-5 relevant, as they say "...with a summary of arguments deemed relevant by the Panel".

1 was probably "It's a barm" or something.
 
I assume they didn't deem 1-5 relevant, as they say "...with a summary of arguments deemed relevant by the Panel".

1 was probably "It's a barm" or something.
Or maybe they related to stuff UEFA would have been even more embarrassed about and City agreed to not have them published in a show of magnanimity...we can hope eh??
 
Salah was offisde for Liverpools 1st goal.

The dubious offside that you mention

Robertson took Sterling out in the box late on in the game. Not even a subjective one - 100% penalty. On the BT coverage they didn't show it and Walton and the panel all agreed 100% penalty. In fact Gerrard even said there were 2 penalty offences - 1 for the original foul and then the ball went back onto Roberston's hand for handball.
The Liverpool defender deliberately handled it after taking out Sterling too - so a pen on two counts.
The game should have ended 2-2 (if pen converted), yet we lost 3-0.
Bent officials.
 
Last edited:
Salah was offside when the ball was first played to him just inside City's half in the build up the first goal. Even the BT Sport commentators picked it up and the replay showed this was the case.

And how could you blame the referee for that ?
I said you couldn't blame the referee for any of liverpool 3 goals, and unless we want the ref to overrule the linesman , for what pre var, was a tight decision , how can you blame the ref. And that was the point.
 
The Liverpool defender handled it after taking out Sterling too - so a pen on two counts.
The game should have ended 2-2 (if pen converted), yet we lost 3-0.
Bent officials.

The game should have ended 3-0 to us because the Dippers should have been disqualified and banned for another half decade for the coach attack.
 
The Liverpool defender handled it after taking out Sterling too - so a pen on two counts.
The game should have ended 2-2 (if pen converted), yet we lost 3-0.
Bent officials.
Exactly... and we should have been going in at h/t in the 2nd leg 2-0 up (4-2) with 2 away goals.
 

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.