Only saw this post on Tuesday morning and it wouldn't display as the relevant Twitter account is apparently now suspended. Out of interest, what was it?
Yes, he's popped up, and very entertainingly so - it's absolutely faithful to his trademark mix of comical bias and a laughable lack of understanding of the issues.
If anyone can bear to click on that execrable site with all the embedded videos and horrible adverts, the link is here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-uefa-champions-league-news-ffp-a9615846.html - for those who don't want to visit it, I've copied some edited highlights into my post below.
Most of [the questions surrounding UEFA after the CAS verdict] could be answered by publishing the original verdict of the Investigatory Chamber, the independent group who came to the conclusion that City deserved to charged with violating fiscal rules.
Petrusha comment - Bring it on!
Right from the start, City said that the statute of limitations for any transgressions had passed. Cas agreed that “most of the alleged breaches … were either not established or time-barred.” A huge part of City’s defence took the lines of “it’s too late to do anything about it,” arguing that the five-year cap on taking action had been exceeded. Cas agreed. Why did Uefa not spot this? ... There is anger in Uefa circles and a belief that City got “off on a technicality.”
Petrusha comment - There's an obvious reason that UEFA chose to throw mud at City in the form of time-barred charges despite knowing that they'd never stick, and that's because they weren't confident about the charges that weren't time-barred, so they tried to smear the club with insinuations of systematic wrongdoing over a protracted period. I think we'll find out if/when the reasons for the award are published that the time-barred allegations were equally as problematic in evidential terms as those that were considered not proven. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see. For sure, Evans can't assert the contrary with any credibility at this stage, yet assert it he does.
City understood the gravity of the situation from the start and have fought their corner hard. ... Uefa, by contrast, seemed remarkably sanguine about events. The club changed the thrust of their defence at Cas, something that had to be agreed by both sides. Uefa allowed it.
There was some disquiet that the governing body did not object to the presence of Andrew McDougall, a Paris-based QC, on the arbitration panel. McDougall’s firm, White & Case, are listed on The Legal 500 website as having Etihad Airways and a number of Abu Dhabi government-owned businesses as key clients. Uefa was right not to kick up a fuss because McDougall’s integrity is beyond question, but while City used every weapon available to them, Nyon seemed to be playing fair.
Petrusha comment - I love the false narrative of plucky UEFA as bastions of probity, scrupulous in ensuring fairness in their conduct notwithstanding the ruthlessness of big, bad City. What a crock of shit! Oh, and if you don't want to question McDougall's integrity, why mention his firm's clients at all?
Cas’s verdict hardly exonerates City. The Football Leaks website released thousands of hacked emails two years ago that were published by Der Spiegel, the German magazine. These illegally-obtained documents were inadmissible in the proceedings but the details hang around the club like a bad smell. One internal communication regarding finances remarks “we can do what we want.” The sense that City operated on the margins of the rules has not been brushed aside by the ruling.
Petrusha comment - Illegally obtained emails aren't usually inadmissible before the CAS (there are several precedents for that) and other sources report that they WERE accepted in this case so that assertion. The rest of this is akin to wailing: "Wah, wah, wah, it's not fair."
