Thanks for your prompt reply. Am I right in thinking that many of these documents would have been submitted to UEFA before the settlement agreement of 2014 and others before we exited the settlement regime and that this lends support to the view that UEFA must be relying on the stolen emails to question the accuracy/credibility of some of these documents? These emails cannot have been subjected to anything like the examination/analysis as the documents listed above, even if they are admissible. UEFA appears to be on a collision course not only with the club but with multinational companies and with companies on which the integrity and honesty of business relies and all on some emails which appear be of no significance! This seems to be a view so extreme that I would be grateful for your comments - and any further thoughts as to why UEFA have pushed it so far.
City wouldn't have submitted documents that undermine their position unless required to do by the rules of disclosure in that case. The documents above would likely have been submitted to the extent they exist. The more they don't exist the more force of the IC's argument. The admissibility of the hacked emails has always been a red herring. The problem with those emails is that they give UEFA ammunition to ask the right questions of City if they haven't already. UEFA likely to be pushing hard a) because they probably believe as a body that the settlement in 2014 was unduly lenient b) there is pressure, politically and competitively, from elsewhere to punish City - even if it is overturned.