Champions League ban?

fanakapan said:
Getting excited on rag cafe about possible ban......I may be wrong but any evidence obtained illegally...would surely be kicked out. If its illegally hacked it can so easily illegally fabricated ...

No chance in hell the sheiks lawyers will not have a beano.
Click to expand...
We'll employ the best specialist barrister in the business and blow FFP out of the water. FFP is anti-competitive. There is nothing unique about football - the owner of a business can invest in their acquisition and grow it. FFP is like saying you can't purchase an independent supermarket and invest in it to challenge the Tescos, Sainsbury's and Waitrose's of this world. Ban us - see you in court UEFA !!!!
 
Is it not about time some lawsuits starting being directed at dog shit outlets that think its OK to report any old sh*t about the club, there is a sustained campaign being waged against us in some quarters and I do NOT think it will get any better until one or two people are made examples of. I'M SURE IF THE CLUB INSTRUCTS ITS VERY EXPENSIVE LAWYERS to sift thorough all the stuff being reported in social media, papers and TV they would surely find something to pick apart in the courts on grounds of defamation. There are pricks like Duncan Castles trying to damage the reputation of the club at every possible opportunity .... Nothing will change and the haters will keep coming for us until the powers that be at City say enough is enough and we fight back!!

Also ... email rule 101: don't put confidential sh*t in emails EVER.
 
fanakapan said:
Getting excited on rag cafe about possible ban......I may be wrong but any evidence obtained illegally...would surely be kicked out. If its illegally hacked it can so easily illegally fabricated ...

No chance in hell the sheiks lawyers will not have a beano.
Click to expand...
Apparently it’s “Whistle Blowing” and even though hacking is illegal the perpetrators are protected under European Law.

Also, I heard that twat Lipton say on the radio sports organisations are legally entitled to make their own rules up under European law and there’s nothing wrong with banning “cheats”

Along with the looming possible transfer ban (along with Chelsea) from FIFA for breaking rules on signing youth players and being restricted by UEFA on the number of loan players that will be allowed a ban from the CL is a full house for shafting us, a Premier League team will benefit (could well be the Rags) so the following will all be happy:

Premier League - Gill, Board Member

Rags - Gill, Board Member

Uefa - Gill, Board Member

Fifa - Gill, Board Member and Vice Chairman

Bent as fuck
 
Last edited:
hammocity said:
Apparently it’s “Whistle Blowing” and even though hacking is illegal the perpetrators are protected under European Law.

Also, I heard that twat Lipton say on the radio sports organisations are legally entitled to make their own rules up under European law and there’s nothing wrong with banning “cheats”

Along with the looming possible transfer ban (along with Chelsea) from FIFA for breaking rules on signing youth players and being restricted by UEFA on the number of loan players that will be allowed a ban from the CL is a full house for shafting us, a Premier League team will benefit (could well be the Rags) so the following will all be happy:

Premier League - Gill, Board Member

Rags - Gill, Board Member

Uefa - Gill, Board Member

Fifa - Gill, Board Member and Vice Chairman

Bent as fuck
Click to expand...

Whistle Blowers act protects employees from their own employers not, another organisation who have illegally obtained documents against another organisation.

Lipton might want to be pointed in the direction of the EU Commission's investigation into fan's claim that ticket prices have been inflated as a direct result of FFP

He clearly doesn't understand that City only failed FFP it because UEFA "cheated" and modified it to ensure City failed it
 
So using illegally obtained information as evidence

Privileged material will not be admissible in court unless it was created in the course of a criminal act or to further a criminal enterprise.

It is a criminal offence to intercept communication between individuals, such as emails and telephone calls, unless you have their permission (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000).

In the course of civil litigation you are required to provide your opponent with any material in your or your client’s possession which (among other things) helps the other side’s case or harms your client’s case. If you have acquired covertly or illegally obtained evidence, you may therefore be forced to provide this to the other side (even if you decided that it was harmful to your case and you did not want to deploy it).

However if the information was obtained and published by a third party, Der Spiegel then

"Since the WikiLeaks scandal, the legal parameters for admissible evidence seem poised to change: evidence that would have been considered inadmissible due to its privileged or confidential character is now admissible because it is considered to be public information. Nevertheless, this boundary should be carefully policed, due to the fact that this evidence was unlawfully obtained at some point. Therefore, in a prima facie analysis, the fact of the evidence having been obtained illegally would weigh against admissibility in light of on public policy grounds. Under the reasoning in Caratube, what would happen if one of the parties hacks the other parties’ emails and then asks a third entity which is not part of the dispute to publish this information in order to gain publicity for the purpose of using it in an arbitration procedure (based on the argument public availability destroys the privileged or confidential status of information)? In light of the foregoing concern, evidence that was unlawfully obtained and becomes public should only be accepted by an international arbitral tribunal on the consent of both parties. This will prevent any party from trying to unlawfully obtain information and will maintain fairness and equality among the parties in the process"

Clearly City's lawyers would have a strong argument against the "evidence" from Der Spiegel being used so its doubtful imho that UEFA would risk taking retrospective measures against City
 
This is a genuine question and not wumming.
Will there ever come a time when the negative publicity about our club outweighs the positive aspects in our owners owning Manchester City ?
This negativity about our owners and the U.A.E is constant and i don't think it will ever go away
 
So all the talk is that we will get banned from the Champions League next season....maybe or maybe not time will tell. However if we do and take a hit financially too, will it also present us with:

a) A unique chance to win 3 consecutive premier league titles if (always if until its in the bag) we win it this season and then push on for a 4th in 2021...

and

b) Provide our players with a huge incentive to win the champions league THIS season?

It could end up being the one best thing UEFA has done for us...
 
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.