Champions League ban?

[hammocity]

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

Hope you are correct

 

[TonyM]

The kids wearing City shirts don’t have a clue or would care about any of this. The more thierbrav parents protest the more they’lol want it. :-)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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

I expect he does understand, but just doesn't want to say so.

 

[vmsuhail]

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...

1. Bad PR
2. Senior players like Aguero/Silva/Kompany missing a decent chance to win the CL when other top teams are in decline.
3. Less revenues
4. Boring midweeks when our rivals play on against top teams.

Yeah, it's the best thing....

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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

But it won't be in court that it will be used. I don't think anyone is accusing City of a crime. It'll be at a UEFA disciplinary session, which almost certainly can have its own rules.

How the details came to light may affect how hard UEFA feel they can press. As others have said, they have the same trade-off as the last time - press City, but don't press them so hard that City threaten to bring down the house of cards.

I'm not even certain that CAS is a court as such.

 

[waspish]

But it won't be in court that it will be used. I don't think anyone is accusing City of a crime. It'll be at a UEFA disciplinary session, which almost certainly can have its own rules.

How the details came to light may affect how hard UEFA feel they can press. As others have said, they have the same trade-off as the last time - press City, but don't press them so hard that City threaten to bring down the house of cards.

I'm not even certain that CAS is a court as such.

In this uefa disciplinary session when comes to a vote and raise of hands in favour who from Gill and the rest of the G7 not going to raise there arm to ban us from champs league?

 

[trevorriley]

id love to be in Europa league instead. Some great away days in smaller European towns, some great fans come to our stadium.

 

[willipp]

I can't believe anyone seriously thinks it would be a good thing to be banned from the CL. There won't be any positives from it at all.

 

[Gordyola]

But it won't be in court that it will be used. I don't think anyone is accusing City of a crime. It'll be at a UEFA disciplinary session, which almost certainly can have its own rules.

How the details came to light may affect how hard UEFA feel they can press. As others have said, they have the same trade-off as the last time - press City, but don't press them so hard that City threaten to bring down the house of cards.

I'm not even certain that CAS is a court as such.

I think any threat of sanctions by UEFA would be met with an injunction from City then it goes to court

We know from the leaks that they were prepared to go to law, I doubt they would hesitate this time and with an even stronger case

 

[MillionMilesAway]

In this uefa disciplinary session when comes to a vote and raise of hands in favour who from Gill and the rest of the G7 not going to raise there arm to ban us from champs league?

It depends what Ceferin tells them, which may in turn depend on intimations from City on what they consider acceptable.