Tricky_Trev
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 31,625
Seems quite worrying this. I guess it’s going to drag on even longer. Never dull is it!?
Unfortunately the law in this area is weak and very opaque. A very basic summary is that effectively, until it’s challenged and new case law and precedent is set, the media can pretty much hold onto stuff for as long as they like as long as they can reasonably claim they might need it for future storiesThis was what I was alluding to earlier in the thread. Its one thing a newspaper publishing a set of documents they argue is in the public interest, but surely it's another thing to drip feed them with a view to maximising sales?
Not strong enough for me, there should be something in there suggesting we'll take action if it continues.Statement from City:
“The questions and matters raised by Der Spiegel appear to be a cynical attempt to publicly re-litigate and undermine a case that has been fully adjudicated, after detailed proceedings and due process, by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
“Manchester City’s policy remains not to comment on out of context materials purported to have been criminally obtained from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel.”
Assumption is BayernWho is pulling the strings with DS?
Only 5,499,992 documents to go(give or take), then we can all rest easy.Honestly, I really hoped this would fuck off forever. For fans like myself who really just want to talk about football, it's incredibly fucking tedious having to pretend to have any interest in litigation or finance. Guess it's gonna roll on and on and on...sigh.
I wouldn’t worry. I doubt very much UEFA would have the appetite to take us on againOnly 5,499,992 documents to go(give or take), then we can all rest easy.
I think they said no one could access what the Portuguese authorities had. The DS stuff is separate and on hard drives DS have access to. This is presuming that none of them are copies.I thought the judge in Portugal issued an order that nobody anywhere could use the hacked emails? Did I not read that in the CAS verdict?
Obviously, Der Spiegel are based in Germany and not Portugal but does anyone know if that order might have a bearing on how these latest allegations might be pursued?
Yes it did. But if you go to page 38-41 of the report, CAS explain why that judgement does not apply to this case, and state the emails are admissible as evidence.I thought the judge in Portugal issued an order that nobody anywhere could use the hacked emails? Did I not read that in the CAS verdict?
Obviously, Der Spiegel are based in Germany and not Portugal but does anyone know if that order might have a bearing on how these latest allegations might be pursued?