One for the geeks and pedants. I should say I'm not convinced it matters much (if at all) but that isn't correct. Yes, it is common ground as to who and what had been provided to UEFA. However, City always argued it was entitled to do what it did. And it appears the Panel was not unanimous in finding against them.
So:
1. City expressly
denied failure to cooperate (see above).
2. City did not agree they
needed to provide the individuals for cross examination - it wasn't because the emails had been hacked - appears the view was wider than that (see 302(ii)).
3. City did not agree they
needed to validate whether the emails were accurate.
View attachment 72620
4.
UEFA did not consider it inappropriate for MCFC not to make admissions as to the authenticity of the Leaked Emails so this was outside CAS.
5. City
did provide all the information in UEFA's request in Appendix 2 to the CFCB Chief Investigator’s letter dated 20 March 2019.
6. CAS found
"MCFC cannot be sanctioned for its failure to produce the complete runs of emails of which the Leaked Emails formed part in these CAS proceedings, or indeed for any failure to produce evidence insofar not pursued in the present proceedings."
7. City did not admit the matters that it was ultimately sanctioned for, arguing the IC didn't make the necessary (repeated) request.
8. City also said "
should there be any finding of a breach by the Panel, it would be necessary to consider what might be a proportionate sanction and therefore reserved its right to make further submissions if such a situation would arise." It was turned down on this but this again says, City did not admit anything re non-cooperation.
Ultimately, the Panel disagreed (2-1) and the fact one of the three found for City means it can't be true it was inevitable.
View attachment 72624
NB:, the conclusion then says it was a failure to cooperate on just two (not three) matters:
View attachment 72629
So I think it is clear, City didn't admit anything which is not wholly surprising as there is little reason to admit.