This is the bit I have difficulty with in understanding the PLs position regarding the equity funding allegations.
At CAS they know the evidence from the emails has been properly considered against rebuttal evidence provided by CIty including the full run of the emails and therefore the missing context, evidence from City (Pearce) and evidence from Etihad, (didn't Etihad's representative say the allegation they only paid 8 million was ridiculous considering the sponsorship valuation), expert witness testimony from an accounts expert regarding the contents of Etihad's accounts and ADUG accounts (confirming no payments were made, particularly from HHSM or ADUG, but none of sufficient value, or smaller multiples thereof to cover the balance of the sponsorship value.
No other evidence other than the emails was offered by UEFA.
The above provided the basis from which the justices formed their "No evidence" opinion that equity funding took place.
So what possible evidence could be available (that City or Etihad would reasonably release to the PL if they were guilty) to prove such conduct did in fact take place? I strongly suspect there is none.
If there is none then the PL are relying solely that the IC will reach a finding contrary to the CAS justices (ignoring the 2-1 majority debacle). Isn't that going out on a limb somewhat with paper thin reasoning to believe that outcome is possible, considering the more likely outcome?
The more you try and reason it the more perplexing it becomes. Yet the PL are prepared to throw a 5 year, £20 Million "Hail Mary" at it.
Should things go in our favour as I suspect then the PL will get everything they deserve in the fallout. If it were possible I personally think we should pursue them for reputational damages should it be such a spectacular failure. The whole thing will have proved nothing more than a witch hunt with a show trial based on the flimsiest of evidence on already litigated matters.
