re UEFA Panel member (Ulrich Haas) who voted against City at CAS.
If anyone can be arsed, the reason he voted against City is explained in the conclusion below. It was published on behalf of Haas by his assistant.
Although we were done at CAS for 'minor' non-cooperation (£10m fine) Hass wanted us banned from Europe due to what he considered to be 'major'/egregious non-cooperation, that was in his opinion. So imho, in Haas's desperation at losing the material arguments about Sponsorships and FFP etc he resorted to gross exaggeration of our lack of co-operation with UEFA. His conclusion also contains an absolutely false statement ie:-
"The withholding of important information and its failure to cooperate remained unpunished"
Conclusion
In the author’s opinion the MCFC decision is undoubtedly one of the most important cases decided in recent years. It is all the more regrettable that the findings of the CAS panel are flawed and contradictory on points of procedure, which arguably puts UEFA`s pursuit of a financial level playing field in UEFA club competitions in jeopardy. Irrespective of the violation of break-even obligations under the FFP, the majority of the panel incorrectly assumed that the procedural request for document production and the duty to cooperate are to be qualified as one continuous procedure. In disregard of the distinction of procedural and substantive duties of clubs subject to the FFP, the CAS panel did not consider the failure to produce one of the most important documents due to UEFA’s alleged lack of interest in such information. This finding cannot be correct as sports governing bodies do not regularly have to insist on the provision of already requested information. This decision can have serious consequences for intelligence-based sports investigations and the effort of sports organisations to establish the truth in order to protect the integrity of sport. MCFC escaped harsher punishment because the CAS panel was of the view that pertinent information concerning transactions in 2012 and 2013 were time-barred, even though they were submitted within the period of limitation. This decision is unfortunate as it punishes the compliant clubs that submit requested information at first request according to the rules and regulations of UEFA. MCFC, in turn, did not comply with their basic duties as a member of UEFA, i.e. to comply with its rules and regulations. To the very end, MCFC did not provide all information requested by UEFA pursuant to Article 56 of the FFP, which, in the author’s opinion, should have resulted in a ban from UEFA’s club competitions. The withholding of important information and its failure to cooperate remained unpunished. Thus, the CAS award makes MCFC the winner of this year’s European football season, even before the 2019‑20 UEFA Champions League champions are crowned.
www.standard.co.uk