More than likely they've just read Der Spiegel, who were a secondary source in the first place. We don't know that Der Spiegel have possession of the emails.
If the emails were legit then we'd have the right to see them once they were turned over to UEFA and if they'd been leaked by somebody in the organisation it would be fairly easy to figure out who it was. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes in that scenario.
So if it's a legitimate source then DS will be obliged to protect that source and won't hand over anything without a court order.
More than likely they've just read Der Spiegel, who were a secondary source in the first place. We don't know that Der Spiegel have possession of the emails.
If the emails were legit then we'd have the right to see them once they were turned over to UEFA and if they'd been leaked by somebody in the organisation it would be fairly easy to figure out who it was. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes in that scenario.
So if it's a legitimate source then DS will be obliged to protect that source and won't hand over anything without a court order.
It's hearsay without the emails and not admissible if it were to go to court. Newspapers aren't a reliable form of evidence.I think you’re right any investigation would be based on the articles not emails.
I can’t see how an investigation based on allegations in Der Spiegel can succeed. Basically would come down to asking City questions that they could choose not to answer.
I'm not sure, I think for theft there would have to be a financial value to the leaker. They'd definitely be in major breach of contract and they'd be bankrupted in court. They'd also be in breach of data protection laws etc.Am I right in my assumption that even if it was a City employee that leaked the emails that it's still considered theft?
It's hearsay without the emails and not admissible if it were to go to court. Newspapers aren't a reliable form of evidence.
It's even debatable if the emails themselves (if legit) would be allowed. If they've been hacked, then they've been obtained through criminal means and aren't reliable (nothing stopping a hacker with malicious intent altering or fabricating emails) and aren't admissible.
If they've been leaked, then they might be. More likely it would need the whistleblower themselves to give evidence and then it comes down to how reliable they are.
On top of all of that, it will also come down to whether FFPR are legally enforceable and whether they've been fairly applied to City. Which UEFA won't want tested in court.
Yeah, that's basically what I meant. Wouldn't see it going to court anyway as it's potentially far too damaging for not just UEFA and City but the G14 and the Champions League product in general.You could argue that within UEFA governance the legality of the information in terms of what would be accepted in court doesn't need to apply. However, that then would open it to legal challenge.
Yeah, that's basically what I meant. Wouldn't see it going to court anyway as it's potentially far too damaging for not just UEFA and City but the G14 and the Champions League product in general.
But internally within UEFA I don't see what they can do either. City and Etihad have made their position very clear and UEFA don't have many options now but escalation in a big way.
There isn't one really, even if they proved City were in the wrong, with the Etihad deal accepted as fair value under their own regs any inflated income would be small and not of the amounts needed to make a difference to the sanctions applied already. There's a political win for them with La Liga and the G14 but the potential downside of being found in breach of competition law (which the G14 including La Liga's flagship clubs would be dragged into as well) makes that pale into insignificance.Yes, I'd agree. If they wanted to take a huge risk then they could do. But where's the upside for them in doing so?
I'm not sure, I think for theft there would have to be a financial value to the leaker. They'd definitely be in major breach of contract and they'd be bankrupted in court. They'd also be in breach of data protection laws etc.