"The defendant Mr. Klopp" has a nice ring to it
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
"The defendant Mr. Klopp" has a nice ring to it
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
Which goes along with the view that if they're not discussed at all then MCFC had no chance to refute those UEFA charges which means our media are wrong to say City got off on a technicality
Well, it's where innocence until proven guilty should be a journalistic code, but when it applies to us it's guilty by whatever means necessary.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
No one:
Absolutely no one:
Jürgen Klopp (via the ECHO):
the right sources being friends in Boston and money launderers, used to pay employees who are found to have hacked their rivals. That sounds like the right way of doing things...
The 'leaks' on Friday didn't match the wording/comments so they may well have originated from someone, somewhere having a punt based on gut feeling coming from the positive comments of those who were there and involved in the CAS process. It'll be interesting to see. Inevitably, if someone did leak information on Friday then the MCFC of today is a somewhat different beast to the MCFC of the past and leaks are unacceptable (unless of course a leak had been authorised in some way). We'll know eventually I'm sure.
On the 'time-barred' material.... What is angering me with the media most at the moment is that many journalists/reporters are claiming that City got off on a technicality. When we see the full CAS report we should know but at the moment I reckon that they've got the angle completely wrong. If CAS couldn't consider some accusations by UEFA because of the time-barred rule then that means that MCFC couldn't present its own case in relation to those accusations or defend those accusations. Worse, it was because of a UEFA rule not MCFC's, so if anything the media should be saying City were prevented from defending/challenging UEFA's views in these areas because UEFA had a time-bar on them! I may be totally misreading this area, but it seems logical that if something couldn't be heard because it had been time-barred then that's not the accused fault, nor is it a sign of their guilt. Anyone know anything about this area?
Our detractors were always going to find something to hang us with whatever CAS announced. But, who's to say that had CAS examined the time barred allegations we wouldn't have been found innocent of those charges to?
As for technicalities, here is the biggest technicality in world football-the notion that FFP is good for the game is a sham. In any other business an owner investing to make it bigger, better and more successful would be applauded yet somehow it's a dirty word in football?
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 51,353
Would love to see how a court would handle his gegenpress..."The defendant Mr. Klopp" has a nice ring to it
No one:
Absolutely no one:
Jürgen Klopp (via the ECHO):
He is absolutely right about one thing, though: FFP is certainly there to protect [certain] teams.
Sue the uniformed knob head
projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,254
Ah I should say, they probably heard or read the evidence but in the judgment wouldn't state any conclusions. Slight nuanceWhich goes along with the view that if they're not discussed at all then MCFC had no chance to refute those UEFA charges which means our media are wrong to say City got off on a technicality
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
Would love to see how a court would handle his gegenpress...
Wonder how he'd cope without his half-time oranges.
"The defence, your honour, maintains that our client was not responsible for the bite marks found on the body. In fact, we assert that the aforementioned marks unequivocally match those of an actual equine".
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 7,013
What’s interesting about all this is that no one knows what we are accused of and so nothing about what CAS decided specifically and why. Until the judgement is out we are all in the dark on the specifics.
I suspect there will be some humble pie to eat after that.
As the poster above points out, the time barred issue is getting a lot of air time but if the allegations were flawed anyway due to the evidence we put to CAS then it’s a non issue. They just do what any court would do and say we didn’t even have to look at them. It’s all about context
we are going to get a kicking on non compliance though. The club have been pretty clear in the past at saying we have tried but CAS clearly did not agree. Their statement is strongly worded on that front
I suspect there will be some humble pie to eat after that.
As the poster above points out, the time barred issue is getting a lot of air time but if the allegations were flawed anyway due to the evidence we put to CAS then it’s a non issue. They just do what any court would do and say we didn’t even have to look at them. It’s all about context
we are going to get a kicking on non compliance though. The club have been pretty clear in the past at saying we have tried but CAS clearly did not agree. Their statement is strongly worded on that front
Sheriff Fatman
Well-Known Member
For wearing a uniform?Sue the uniformed knob head