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

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.
Of course you are correct.
The football sector has tried to demonise our owner from day one and shortly after the media has had to move with the times and become digital.
We have a media thread that has chronicled this bias for years so expecting change to happen overnight in spite of factual legal evidence is a step too far for a media that keeps itself financially solvent by clickbait.

If you want unbiased football or even general news I really don't know where you look these days.
 
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 ?
We didn't have the option to remove him. We nominated our choice for arbitrator and UEFA nominated theirs. Haas was UEFA's choice of arbitrator. The only ground for objection was over a confict of interest. We then agreed on the chair of hte panel, which either side could object to.
 
We didn't have the option to remove him. We nominated our choice for arbitrator and UEFA nominated theirs. Haas was UEFA's choice of arbitrator. The only ground for objection was over a confict of interest. We then agreed on the chair of hte panel, which either side could object to.
Thanks mate, I was wrongly under the impression we could.

They obviously sounded this mofo out (imo).
 
I have not read the 90 odd pages but surely within that should be the areas of panel disagreement perhaps detailing reasons to disagree on our exonerated charge ss well as the non compliance one?
If not so surely a majority verdict causes the reasoning to be speculated on and not understood legally?
 
We didn't have the option to remove him. We nominated our choice for arbitrator and UEFA nominated theirs. Haas was UEFA's choice of arbitrator. The only ground for objection was over a confict of interest. We then agreed on the chair of hte panel, which either side could object to.

And it all worked out well so this post hearing analysis is largely meaningless or sour grapes - to date UEFA haven’t appealed so there are no significant procedural issues or grounds for appeal - so whether the wider football family, the crooks at UEFA, the bullies that are the G14 or the idiots who masquerade as journalists like it or not - the CAS has passed its judgement and their decision is binding.
 
My closing thoughts on this topic, and I really hope that this now forms part of City's past and not future, is that support for Manchester City does not equate to support for the UAE state.

Amnesty International and the human rights lobby including large elements of the media took up a position that Manchester City were a soft power play by the UAE state. Manchester City fans were accused of being gullible and prepared to back the UAE state politically because of our ownership e.g. we were accused of taking side in 'spying' disputes but in my opinion it's rather the other way around. Influential media organisations like the Guardian allowed their hostility towards the UAE to colour their opinion of the technical dispute between UEFA, G14 clubs and Manchester City to such an extent that they ignored the evidence.

I think every person should be more conscious and aware of the world we are part of. Militarism, conflict, refugees etc are matters which concern us all and I really appreciate the concerns of liberal critics who are moved by these issues. Nobody should be immune but in my opinion the underlying causes of such problems stem from the activities of states like the USA, the UK and France. That does not mean we should be supportive of conservative regimes like the UAE. Imo the UAE is trying to evolve and advance and build a knowledge based economy, but that doesn't mean I should worship our owner. If you look at where the UAE is going politically it is pragmatic and is willing to establish relationships with China . If anyone is guilty of political naivety it is not Manchester City supporters but our critics in the Guardian and media who support the political model of Great Britain and the Commonwealth.
 
Interesting quote from an interview with Ceferin published today in Slovenia. Here's the link to the full article (in Slovenian) :



"Basic integrity is very important here, I'm talking about football officials and I will not enter Slovenian political waters. People who are in certain positions must be completely independent, they must give the appearance of independence and they must not be influenced by anyone, at all. Especially not by people who could benefit in any way from their actions, "emphasizes the most influential Slovenian, Aleksander Čeferin.
 
My closing thoughts on this topic, and I really hope that this now forms part of City's past and not future, is that support for Manchester City does not equate to support for the UAE state.

Amnesty International and the human rights lobby including large elements of the media took up a position that Manchester City were a soft power play by the UAE state. Manchester City fans were accused of being gullible and prepared to back the UAE state politically because of our ownership e.g. we were accused of taking side in 'spying' disputes but in my opinion it's rather the other way around. Influential media organisations like the Guardian allowed their hostility towards the UAE to colour their opinion of the technical dispute between UEFA, G14 clubs and Manchester City to such an extent that they ignored the evidence.

I think every person should be more conscious and aware of the world we are part of. Militarism, conflict, refugees etc are matters which concern us all and I really appreciate the concerns of liberal critics who are moved by these issues. Nobody should be immune but in my opinion the underlying causes of such problems stem from the activities of states like the USA, the UK and France. That does not mean we should be supportive of conservative regimes like the UAE. Imo the UAE is trying to evolve and advance and build a knowledge based economy, but that doesn't mean I should worship our owner. If you look at where the UAE is going politically it is pragmatic and is willing to establish relationships with China . If anyone is guilty of political naivety it is not Manchester City supporters but our critics in the Guardian and media who support the political model of Great Britain and the Commonwealth.
Some good points as ever there Marvin. The question is, why does anyone sponsor football clubs? What do Chevrolet and Aeroflot gain from being sponsors of United? You can't buy a new Chevrolet in the UK or even Europe. Aeroflot don't fly from most UK airports. But it's about brand recognition. Their names are seen all round the world as part of the most-watched league in the most-watched sport. It's advertising pure and simple. Etihad once had grand designs to be one of the world's leading airlines and, along with the other two Gulf airlines, promoted themselves via their sponsorship of City.

But let's take the other side of the coin. Aeroflot are majority owned by a repressive regime. We know that Standard Chartered & Western Union, Liverpool's two major sponsors, are two of the biggest convicted money launderers in the world. Emirates are another UAE airline and sponsor Arsenal and their stadium. Chelsea are owned by someone who isn't even allowed a UK visa as he's under sanctions. More often than not you'll find a gambling company no one has heard off on the front of someone's shirt. Half of last season's PL team had one. Brighton are owned by someone who trades heavily in the betting markets.

No one ever talks about the motives of US owners, who hide their accounts in Delaware or offshore tax havens (as do other investors). No one appears to be interested in talking about agents and their malign influence, or the execrable standard of refereeing under Mike Riley. There should be a concerted media campaign to get rid of Riley, who's fucked up time and time again. The Guardian holds politicians to account but i've never seen any of their football writers call for Riley's head.

We know what this is all about. Focusing on our ownership allows the media and our enemies to distract from the real problems in the game.
 
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

Exactly how I and many of us saw it as well. But the media decided to interpret the non-cooperation as City being obstructive, with the inference being that they were actually guilty. And because it was said enough times by supposed reputable outlets, it became "fact".
 

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.