I'm not as clued up on this case as you guys are. But I keep seeing references to 'irrefutable evidence' that you aren't guilty. Is this just something the owners have come out with? Or is there more to it?
There is no irrefutable evidence either way. The emails require context and UEFA have decided that they are going to presume guilt whereas City say they didn’t mean that.
It will be up to neutral courts to decide whether or not the emails, with context, confirm any guilt.
A wider point here is that the PL, FA and UEFA do not want City dining at the top table and they will do whatever it is they can to stop City. This punishment of a two year suspension, even if City were guilty, is incredibly strong and not even the dogs in the media who hate City, called for anything beyond a year.
FFPR, as anyone with half a brain knows, was brought in specifically to stop City and help the likes of Utd and Liverpool and Arsenal and Madrid and Munich and Barca etc. City, a club with no debt at all, cannot spend their own money, whereas Utd, £500m in debt, can.
The problem is, once this is all over, whether City are banned or not and whenever it is they do actually play in the CL again, they will not be ever allowed to win it. Looking back at the last 3 CL campaigns, since Guardiola came, City have gone out following terrible decisions from the officials in each of the 3 seasons.
The Monaco game City were denied 2 clear penalties and they went out on away goals. The Liverpool game, they scored 2 goals that were onside, that got ruled out and they should have had a penalty at Anfield. The tie is totally different if any of those decisions go in City’s favour. Spurs last season and Llorente handles the ball before it goes in. The new rules stating that any goal scored with a hand/goal in the build up will be disallowed.
VAR this season has been a farce and whilst Liverpool are definitely winning the league regardless of all the decisions being correct, the gap is smaller and Liverpool aren’t beating the records set by City. The PL is desperate for City not to hold those records.
In my opinion, and the opinion of other people I’ve spoken to who support neutral clubs in League One, the Championship, the whole thing stinks from top to bottom. The media, the FA, the PL, UEFA, other clubs, pundits, commentators, journalists, match officials, bureaucrats etc. are all in on corrupting the sport and ensuring that the traditionally powerful clubs are kept there.
Take David Gill for example, he’s involved in the authorities and decision making and even had involvement in this. He’s Utd’s ex CEO, was still on the board up until recently and yet was making decisions on punishing their local rivals. Liverpool and Utd getting to vet the new PL Chairman - how is that allowed? In any other industry it would be conflict of interest.
A sport ceases to be a sport when it’s manipulated in the favour of certain teams and football is well and truly beyond that line.
I’ll just leave it with Martin Samuel’s point in the Mail-
No wonder David Gill and his allies graft so hard in those corridors of power, no wonder Ed Woodward devotes his time to the executive board of the European Clubs Association. Ferran Soriano, chief executive officer of Manchester City, thought he was in line for a place within the ECA.
Then there was a little pushback and suddenly he wasn't, unlike board members at United, Arsenal and Liverpool — the traditional red alliance that controls English football, and holds meetings to which rivals are not invited.
United and Liverpool even got to vet Richard Scudamore's successor at the Premier League, it is claimed. It seems some clubs really are more equal than others.
Manchester City will now take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the first time it is to be heard by a body not linked to UEFA. European football's rulers brought this case, heard this case, and have now passed sentence.