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

[asahartford1]

Interesting ? Surely that’s exactly what we were accused of and exactly was CAS found that we didn’t do....

If they have evidence of that, we are in big trouble, and the journos will be all over it.

 

[Paladin]

I've posted a couple of times about this but haven't seen any actual expert confirmation to back it up.

As I understand it the two Arbitrators consider the evidence and give their verdict on it, if they disagree then the President has the deciding vote. If both Arbitrators are in agreement then it's reported as a 'majority verdict'. I've no idea what they call it if the President has to overrule. The fact that 'majority verdict' appears to be the only term used suggests that there were no disagreements as surely they wouldn't both be at odds over every single decision.

Surely not. I agree that perhaps if both arbitrators agree, the president might not need to record his view. But if the president casts a deciding vote, then surely that will be recorded as a majority decision.

'Unanimous' is never used be report, but there are plenty of occasions that say 'the panel agreed' or 'the panel decided'. This to me, is where either the president didn't need to cast his vote (as above), or if it is the practice for him to vote, all three were in agreement.

 

[mad4city]

I particularly like Tony Evans claims that
- City selected the chairman, as if that was all there was to it and UEFA had no say
- UEFA ALLOWED City to introduce evidence into CAS proceedings. Or, just maybe CAS allowed it as it was their proceedings.

It's misrepresentation of the facts, as per.

It's a particularly revealing message too: 'How dare UEFA allow evidence [that effectively cleared City of wrongdoing]!?' they ask. Never once allowing for the fact that the purpose of the hearing was to establish the truth, rather than say a process of vilification.

 

[Gremlin]

If they have evidence of that, we are in big trouble, and the journos will be all over it.

Clearly they didn't have evidence of that beyond the emails and CAS said the emails didn't prove it on their own. Hence why the media are pushing the non-cooperation angle as this one is closed.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Clearly they didn't have evidence of that beyond the emails and CAS said the emails didn't prove it on their own. Hence why the media are pushing the non-cooperation angle as this one is closed.

And that City were only not found guilty by UEFA failings, and not entertaining the thought that there may be no guilt to find.

 

[jimharri]

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

Is that you? It's a fantastic read bud. I doff my cap to you.

 

[asahartford1]

Clearly they didn't have evidence of that beyond the emails and CAS said the emails didn't prove it on their own. Hence why the media are pushing the non-cooperation angle as this one is closed.

Not sure whether ground hog day, or deja vu is most most appropriate )

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

 

[journolud]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

I do have better windows than next door and the window cleaner can fuck off. Erm, just saying

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I still can't get my head around CAS' justification for the size of the fine, citing because we are a club of financial means?

We even tried to advance the current coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the amount?

It's like saying your window cleaner charges you more simply because you have better fucking windows than next door!

In a criminal court, which I realise this is not, any fine issued upon being found guilty of a charge is often related to the financial background of the accused. Ie, a football player would be fined a lot more money for a drink driving guilty verdict than Joe bloggs who earns the working or living wage.