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

Kinkys Left Foot

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
2,847
Location
Audenshaw
Team supported
City
Sounds fair...... make a load of bullshit up from some emails which prove nothing and which give a pretence to conducting some fishing expedition investigation and leak the results of your private consultation process to the press pack and the enemies of those you're investigating. They will of course kick up a fuss and likely be advised by advocates to not comply further at which point they do commit a breach of the rules so they can be banned anyway....for doing nothing except not complying with a trumped up accusation of malfeasance which can be proved to be just that.
Theres nothing like equitable justice ...............and neither is that.
 

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
971
A paper from Ulrich's (one of the CAS panel) research assistants, quite critical of the decision. Probably ends the 2-0 argument.


1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree
 

Ardwick Green Blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
2,696
Location
Still working my bollocks off..
1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree

In layman's terms would you reasonably describe it as a load of bollocks, then?
 

toffee balls

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 Oct 2004
Messages
3,349
Location
2004 originals
I'm interested to hear what some of the more informed people on here think of his argument.

Perhaps those desperate to move on should do so in other threads and leave people wanting to discuss the case to do so in here.
That’s your per prerogative of course.
I find it slightly masochistic but each to their own , I suppose.
 

DorisBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Sep 2017
Messages
766
Can’t help but feel everyone needs to move on and lock the thread. Far as we know, its done, we’re cleared and they won’t reopen it (again).

Negative headlines/press/comments are inevitable given the crap we’ve had to deal with over the years from a lot of people who had convinced themselves of our guilt.

Smile at their pain, but dont read it, dont think about it.

Enjoy pep and the players serving up the most incredible football any of us could even imagine we’d be watching.
 

nmc

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Jan 2006
Messages
15,236
Location
Manchester
Team supported
MCFC
This is starting to feel like one of those murder trials where the media don’t like the look of a guy so they tell everyone he’s guilty - you know he looks guilty. The prosecution have little evidence, no motive, no body etc and the accused walks free but the media carry on with their campaign - he looks guilty and if he didn’t do it -who did. If only UEFA could of used the West Midlands Regional Crime Unit - there’d be no issue - they could have fabricated the missing evidence and written statements for everyone on City’s side supporting UEFAs accusations. Justice and truth go hand in hand which is precisely why some people really struggle with it.
 

Rosler's Mullet

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 Oct 2008
Messages
8,324
1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree
So basically, the office junior (get the kettle on kid ;-) ).

Just out of interest PR, it would appear Haas was chosen by UEFA because they knew he had particular "leanings/sympathy's" with their case, I'm sure we would have known this too, so if we had the option to remove him from the process, why didn't we, could it be as simple as us wanting to demonstrate to CAS that we believed in THEIR process, and to do otherwise would show we didn't ?
 
Last edited:

WRicko

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Jan 2016
Messages
921
1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree

Not a lawyer but I don’t understand why supposedly educated people like him and some hacks in the media who ought to no better keep going down this line of UFA should have gone with non cooperation as the main argument surely it’s rubbish one because it would be like going after a murder by getting him for tax evasion yes you might have more proof for the later but the sentence is a lot less besides focusing on one or having that as the reason for your main punishment does not stop you getting him for the other they went after us for both and got us for one if they had gone to CAS without the disguised equity part but still insisted on trying to punish us to the extent they did CAS would have been in a fit of laughter would have still got punished mind because they agree we did not cooperate although it would proof our point even more that people are out to get us
 

SilverFox2

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 May 2014
Messages
4,450
Location
Almeria
Can’t help but feel everyone needs to move on and lock the thread. Far as we know, its done, we’re cleared and they won’t reopen it (again).

Negative headlines/press/comments are inevitable given the crap we’ve had to deal with over the years from a lot of people who had convinced themselves of our guilt.

Smile at their pain, but dont read it, dont think about it.

Enjoy pep and the players serving up the most incredible football any of us could even imagine we’d be watching.
Of course you are correct.
The football sector has tried to demonise our owner from day one and shortly after the media has had to move with the times and become digital.
We have a media thread that has chronicled this bias for years so expecting change to happen overnight in spite of factual legal evidence is a step too far for a media that keeps itself financially solvent by clickbait.

If you want unbiased football or even general news I really don't know where you look these days.
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
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.