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

[Ancoats blue]

the media are still reporting the fine as city being guilty ??????

It says they were found guilty of not co-operating with UEFA, but we all knew that beforehand .... the club were convinced that they never gonna get a fair trial out of a bent organisation like UEFA , so they simply just blanked them until they could get a fair trial off someone else!

 

[meltonblue]

I thought I read somewhere that bits had been taken from various different emails and stuck together to make it look like it was saying something else?

One of the emails was actually two different emails put together. They found that it didn’t change the veracity of it though.

Essentially it’s more they were selectively viewed rather than edited. Ultimately, we didn’t deny the authenticity, the argument is more they were taken out of context and it didn’t actually happen.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

His Times article doesn't show it, like all the rest of the weasels he focuses on the obstruction angle.

The obstruction angle is not even new.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I did say Pearce was our witness;)

I've read it all now, it doesn't give me the payback I'd hoped for, but a win's a win.

 

[Akpowell]

Don’t be ridiculous, she does her job as instructed.

Exactly

 

[Ancoats blue]

At fucking last!
Proof that our legal office has been onto the BBC.
The fight back has started.

Good , let's put the wind up the f**kin lot of em !

 

[mad4city]

Does it really say this?


"in the absence of particulars as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channeled through 3rd parties is based on innuendo. And does not meet the requisite standard of proof"

It does!

For my money, this is one of two extremely important -but so far, unreported - things in the verdict.

The other being that the Leaked Emails were in fact "fruit of the poisonous tree".
Only there was no proof that UEFA themselves hacked City [and they were acting on information now in the public domain], meant they allowed to pursue the case... for all the sky denigration of the original report, it now transpires that UEFA's case was only allowed to proceed on a technicality.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Also, just to make the point clearly, para 209 says, in one short sentence so not even the thickest of scouse journalists can misunderstand "The Panel notes that UEFA's case is primarily premised on the leaked emails."

Remember our convo mate;)

 

[Woody135]

Have we put out a statement yet?

 

[Rolee]

Manchester City showed 'blatant disregard' in Uefa FFP case, but didn't breach FFP says Cas

Interesting how the BBC third rate hack sees it as more important to have the 'blatant disregard' element as the lead (the minor and welded on additional charge), and tags on the non-breach (the main charge) as a bit of an afterthought. Anyone reading that would be led to believe that blatantly disregarding a process is more heinous than cooking the books.

Non cooperation is an FFP breach???