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

I'm still on page 703 and my take is that, basically:
1- City scared the shit out of the cartel at the prospect of dominating Europe.
2- The Cartel put a plan together to stop City off the pitch and came out with FFP, meanwhile their refs (Mateu LaHoz et al) would do the dirty work on the pitch. Later on VAR came to their rescue.
3- after moving their own goalposts Uefa crippled Pellegrini's side with sanctions. Khaldoon said we'd take the slap on the wrist. Dipper cunts failed FPP but it was swept under the red carpet.
4- While City being compliant and profitable, the cartel decided to attack again by hiring a hacker. Littlewoods proved it goes unpunished with City's scout system hacked.
5- The hacked emails were leaked by dipper **** Parry to his lap dog Tariq Panja and his minions in the WhatsApp group; and rag scum Gill through german rags hired Der Spiegel to doctor a case for UEFA, one **** Christoff Wankerbaum whats-his-name being the operative.
6- Cartel got giddy and decided "this is it" and proceed to ban City. Incompetent cartel shoot themselves in the foot by leaking the proceeds to Panja and der Spiegel their poorly doctored case.
7- City blatantly disregarded those nosey nine nonces kangaroo court charges and appealed to CAS.
8- City won the appeal, red piss boiling everywhere.

Am I right?


You just nailed it in one swift post.
Thank you

Now lets close the thread -;
 
Sounds fair...... make a load of bullshit up from some emails which prove nothing and which give a pretence to conducting some fishing expedition investigation and leak the results of your private consultation process to the press pack and the enemies of those you're investigating. They will of course kick up a fuss and likely be advised by advocates to not comply further at which point they do commit a breach of the rules so they can be banned anyway....for doing nothing except not complying with a trumped up accusation of malfeasance which can be proved to be just that.
Theres nothing like equitable justice ...............and neither is that.
 
A paper from Ulrich's (one of the CAS panel) research assistants, quite critical of the decision. Probably ends the 2-0 argument.


1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree
 
1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree

In layman's terms would you reasonably describe it as a load of bollocks, then?
 
I'm interested to hear what some of the more informed people on here think of his argument.

Perhaps those desperate to move on should do so in other threads and leave people wanting to discuss the case to do so in here.
That’s your per prerogative of course.
I find it slightly masochistic but each to their own , I suppose.
 
Can’t help but feel everyone needs to move on and lock the thread. Far as we know, its done, we’re cleared and they won’t reopen it (again).

Negative headlines/press/comments are inevitable given the crap we’ve had to deal with over the years from a lot of people who had convinced themselves of our guilt.

Smile at their pain, but dont read it, dont think about it.

Enjoy pep and the players serving up the most incredible football any of us could even imagine we’d be watching.
 
This is starting to feel like one of those murder trials where the media don’t like the look of a guy so they tell everyone he’s guilty - you know he looks guilty. The prosecution have little evidence, no motive, no body etc and the accused walks free but the media carry on with their campaign - he looks guilty and if he didn’t do it -who did. If only UEFA could of used the West Midlands Regional Crime Unit - there’d be no issue - they could have fabricated the missing evidence and written statements for everyone on City’s side supporting UEFAs accusations. Justice and truth go hand in hand which is precisely why some people really struggle with it.
 
1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree
So basically, the office junior (get the kettle on kid ;-) ).

Just out of interest PR, it would appear Haas was chosen by UEFA because they knew he had particular "leanings/sympathy's" with their case, I'm sure we would have known this too, so if we had the option to remove him from the process, why didn't we, could it be as simple as us wanting to demonstrate to CAS that we believed in THEIR process, and to do otherwise would show we didn't ?
 
Last edited:
1. He is a junior research assistant with barely any time in practice
2. There is not a single precedent cited demonstrating the points decided by the panel were clearly and obviously wrong as opposed to educated people disagreeing
3. In my view, he fundamentally misunderstands UEFA's case - it was not 2 cases - one of non co-op and one of disguised equity investment. It was a disguised equity investment case with non co-op tagged on as an aggravating factor. UEFA may well have succeeded in a much cleaner way if they have led with non co-op but they did not. As I have always said, UEFA's biggest error was setting their case so high - false accounting, deception, dishonesty etc and all without the necessary evidence. This was a case that was, correctly, bound to fail - you can't make those allegations without foundation just because you suspect it to be the case
4. I have no view on the esoteric points made in the article but they are obviously debatable - again educated people can disagree

Not a lawyer but I don’t understand why supposedly educated people like him and some hacks in the media who ought to no better keep going down this line of UFA should have gone with non cooperation as the main argument surely it’s rubbish one because it would be like going after a murder by getting him for tax evasion yes you might have more proof for the later but the sentence is a lot less besides focusing on one or having that as the reason for your main punishment does not stop you getting him for the other they went after us for both and got us for one if they had gone to CAS without the disguised equity part but still insisted on trying to punish us to the extent they did CAS would have been in a fit of laughter would have still got punished mind because they agree we did not cooperate although it would proof our point even more that people are out to get us
 

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.