Totally wrong. CAS went out of their way to state that their verdict owed nothing to time barring. For example, the first timed barred item actually took place before ffp was in place. CAS said “There is NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS CONTINUED AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF FFP.”Jeez, relax mate.
I've read a little, but would certainly not claim to be an expert on City's struggles with UEFA, or indeed the unresolved ones with the FA.
There's always two sides of course, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest the whole thing was just a case of UEFA or the FA being on a witch hunt.
I was under the impression that the charges were only avoided once City went to the CoA, and that avoidance of prosecution was due to certain items being time barred?
Anyway, I'll read up on it myself for the sake of interest
Jeez, relax mate.
I've read a little, but would certainly not claim to be an expert on City's struggles with UEFA, or indeed the unresolved ones with the FA.
There's always two sides of course, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest the whole thing was just a case of UEFA or the FA being on a witch hunt.
I was under the impression that the charges were only avoided once City went to the CoA, and that avoidance of prosecution was due to certain items being time barred?
Anyway, I'll read up on it myself for the sake of interest.
If you are going to keep posting about this you really should read the judgement otherwise you are just repeating the lies of the press