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

mrbelfry said:
Kicking off about doctored emails won't play because we provided most of the emails and CAS found there wasn't a huge difference in content when compared with what we provided.

From what i can gather UEFA tried to use the emails to establish a pattern or template of behaviour that made us guilty. They are essentially a red herring - CAS stated that only evidence we actually did the things that UEFA alleged would be adequate to prove UEFA's case. City and UEFA agreed that the emails were sufficient to launch an investigation but CAS decided they wouldn't be appropriate as evidence. CAS even applied a lower standard of proof than City asked for. UEFA could present no evidence except an insinuation that the two payments Pearce mentioned re Etihad when shown in the accounts and demonstrated an attempt to hide owner investment. My guess is that this is the evidence that Tony Evans refers to. UEFA also tried to infer something dodgy was going on based on the order of those payments.

We pretty much lost on every arguement we presented except demonstrating that we hadn't hidden owner investment. We didn't even need to do that because UEFA didn't establish that we did.

The emails are only relevant in that they were grounds to open an investigation. The crux of the matter is that there is no evidence that a crime was even committed.

It is the equivalent of you saying you were going to kill your mate. The police arresting you for murder and you turning up at court with your mate who has not been murdered. Ah but the police say you had a knife and you could have used that to murder him. Sure but here is my mate not murdered and he's actually my alibi because on the night you said i murdered him we were at the pub together. Oh so you were with him on the night he was murdered! Guilty!! No because he's not murdered. Well can you tell us what you did with the murder weapon? Nope. See he won't help us. He guilty

For future reference i am available at short notice for CAS 3 or to workshop with Ken Loach to develop the movie
Click to expand...
If all you say is true - why did we warrant a two year ban for Christ sake?
 
SilverFox2 said:
As I see it from the media point of view their expectation was that we would get our just deserts from CAS and were amazed when exoneration appeared.
Surely their argent is with either or both CAS or those who convinced them of our guilt.

The decision has been made in our favour so perhaps refering the offending media to CAS or UEFA would suffice?
Unless of course we prefer to keep their click bait traps going. What will they do to attract customers without a City theme.
Click to expand...

Largely, they appear to have now moved into:
UEFA have messed up completely and their incompetence has allowed the clearly guilty City to get off.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
I made a thread, amazingly it seems to have taken off and people like it. If you have a spare 3 mins, feel free to give it a read. Just my observations based on the facts of the 93 page report. No agenda bullshit

Click to expand...

This is a great thread, not just because I'm a City fan, but also because it's all based on actual facts and not there so called facts they've twisted.
 
Mancity1980 said:
Maybe, but you are suggesting there was something(s) to hide. If we really had done nothing wrong no picking through the bones would have found anything.
Click to expand...
If we had provided 'Evidence' to UEFA, they would have done what they did when
the Emails were presented by a German newspaper, look at it, dissect the bits
they liked, judge, and then condemn publicly in advance of any hearing.
City decided to go straight to CAS without allowing this to happen, regrettably,
CAS took their side on this, hence the fine, but hey-ho.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
I made a thread, amazingly it seems to have taken off and people like it. If you have a spare 3 mins, feel free to give it a read. Just my observations based on the facts of the 93 page report. No agenda bullshit

Click to expand...

Excellent stuff bud, well done.
 
BrianW said:
I've sent in my complaint to the BBC. I said among things that I am sick of them appeasing the fans of "favoured" clubs, and that their attitude to City smacks of racist bias against Arab Muslims. I also stressed we have been acquitted of the substantive charge, and that UEFA's case was feeble, while their processes were crooked and leaked like a sieve. I hope more of us will write in it only takes a few minutes.
Click to expand...

You inspired me. Just cobbled a quick complaint before work!

Following the publication of a 93 page document from CAS, which clearly exonerated Manchester City FC from breaching the guidelines of FFP, your headline and story, subsequently changed, led your readers to believe that they were still guilty. The report highlighted that 5.5 emails were hacked, 6 were used by UEFA, two of which were amalganmated to infer it was one and one was two years before FFP existed. This, I believe, is the message you should be portraying. I find that your sports department shows a racist bias towards the Arab Muslim owned football club, whilst white American owned football clubs do not have their stories reported in a negative way. Take the reported hacking of Manchester City's databases by Liverpool supporters. A white American owned club and aboslutely no report of this on your website. BBC is using the race and origin of football clubs to decide how they report stories to its readership. This is unacceptable and must stop. Or is the real reason that your partisan reporters Dan Roan and Simon Stone allow their allegiances to override their professionalism whilst being encouraged by their editor. Please could you advise which it is?
 
the next zoom manager press conference city should have a lawyer sat in peps seat and ask any questions and point out facts before pep speaks
 
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.