UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[slbsn]

As quoted and expressed so many times on here, we do not know the details of the case or appeal. We can speculate on the issues and outcome but it serves no purpose.

As expressed many times almost the entire forum is speculation. If you don't want to speculate or discuss educated speculation/guesses, don't read the thread. It's not complicated.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

amongst the Bluemoon brethren, nothing you say gets taken as your own opinion, it's all reckoned to be a snippet from someone else.

Haha - no, just me spit-balling and hardly a stretch to imagine Pearce was at least present, considering he was the one responding within some of the hacked emails!

I'd have hoped we left it all to our expensively-assembled counsel!

 

[Citizen Green]

amongst the Bluemoon brethren, nothing you say gets taken as your own opinion, it's all reckoned to be a snippet from someone else.

Correct, plus my ever changing teenage like emotions relating to this whole subject.

 

[Tb1981]

Would City still be able to suspend the ban even if we failed in the CAS appeal, taking it directly to the Swiss Court would allow for that?

A whisper Simon Pearce was one of the witnesses called.

Probably a uefa witness!

 

[Centurions]

I doubt there is a such thing as "irrefutable evidence" here - we are trying to prove a negative. The fact that UEFA has already refuted our evidence tells you it can be refuted. There is "strong" evidence, "powerful" evidence, "compelling" evidence, "documentary" evidence. Irrefutable has always been a silly word to use.

The reason it is dangerous to put up witnesses like Pearce is because barristers are good and Pearce could easily have been made to say something that gave the wrong impression. His emails demonstrate he is not the most disciplined or careful person. In addition, it is a very difficult risk to control. Given the stakes you don't want risk.

So you're happy to judge the character of Simon Pearce from one or two emails taken out of context? Given his job and CV I would suggest you're talking nonsense there.

 

[Metalartin]

It's probably a bit too optimistic to expect the verdict on the 1st of July isn't it? So looking forward to the day this thread can be locked and hopefully City fans will have reasons to celebrate it coming to an end.

 

[Citizen Green]

It's probably a bit too optimistic to expect the verdict on the 1st of July isn't it?

It's to be announced jointly by John Henry, David Gill & Tebas at 12:00 BST.

 

[Marvin]

It is not us holding CAS to account. It is CAS holding themselves to account. If CAS were to produce an error-strewn determination then their credibility as an independent arbitration body comes under severe scrutiny. The press in this country and rival fans may not care, at the sort of level at which most of us operate. It is what sports lawyers and other athletes/teams that have to go through CAS will take from the verdict that matters more to CAS. Our appeal determination will not just be read by City, the fans and UEFA. It will be read by other CAS members who weren't selected for this case, barristers and members of professional legal bodies. It is a high-profile case with much at stake for one of the parties. Surely you can see how it is much more open to scrutiny than a UEFA decision which nobody outside of UEFA and City has had the "privilege" (I use the term loosely) of reading.

Who are the 'scrutineers'? They are the likes of the Guardian, Dan Roan, Simon Stone etc.

 

[slbsn]

So you're happy to judge the character of Simon Pearce from one or two emails taken out of context? Given his job and CV I would suggest you're talking nonsense there.

Many talented people make appalling witnesses in litigation. The emails may be taken out of context (or maybe not) but it wouldn't be difficult for a barrister to make hay from those statements. Nonsense or not, that is my view - I'd have had him nowhere near CAS. If the emails can be shown to be misleading, let documents do it as opposed to witness evidence.

 

[Marvin]

Fucking Grealish?

I'd sooner cop a 2 year ban than the one dimensional and limited peaky blinder impersonator.

Very talented player.

 

[Metalartin]

It's to be announced jointly by John Henry, David Gill & Tebas at 12:00 BST.

Had to unlike that comment(feeling superstitious today), hope we don't hear from them for a long time regarding City, unless they are publicly apologising to the club and fans.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Possible cover for de Bruyne as he gets injured often and may yet pack up if things go wrong at CAS. Or even a cover for gundogan/fern who are around or over 30 now.

We have got Phil Foden. Grealish looked very poor in the games against us this season. He can't play a defensive midfield role. He tends to play on the left hand side of midfield for Villa. Mason Mount, James Maddison, Tielemans are all much better players.

 

[Citizen Green]

If there is one thing we should take from this thread, it is that fucking Jack Grealish won't be replacing Kevin De Bruyne.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Many talented people make appalling witnesses in litigation. The emails may be taken out of context (or maybe not) but it wouldn't be difficult for a barrister to make hay from those statements. Nonsense or not, that is my view - I'd have had him nowhere near CAS. If the emails can be shown to be misleading, let documents do it as opposed to witness evidence.

I'm sure you would agree that the barrister's representing City are not mugs. IF Pearce was called as a witness then they must believe his testimony could be a crucial part of our defence.

 

[blueinsa]

Very talented player.

In a relegation threatened side no doubt.

Wouldn't get a sniff with us and a pointless waste of money.

Let him go falling over at the rags for £70M.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Think I’d have sooner put Stuart Pearce up as a witness instead of Simon Pearce

Steady on now mate.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

So you're happy to judge the character of Simon Pearce from one or two emails taken out of context? Given his job and CV I would suggest you're talking nonsense there.

Only a couple of emails but he made some very unprofessional comments. Did he make the joke about the death of the UEFA official? Either way for someone operating at a very senior level he showed a total lack of awareness of cyber security. Emails are not (and have never been) a secure method of communication for sensitive information. His lack of professionalism has cost our club and our organisation millions of pounds so far and I have zero trust in him.

 

[slbsn]

I'm sure you would agree that the barrister's representing City are not mugs. IF Pearce was called as a witness then they must believe his testimony could be a crucial part of our defence.

Very hard to argue with your logic.

But if that was the case, I'd be very concerned about the strength of our case because City spoke of "irrefutable" evidence. As I said above that's a poor choice of word, but it must mean documentary evidence that they consider very strong. You would never call a witnesses evidence "irrefutable".

So why then, would the evidence of Pearce be so "crucial". City had suggested it was "open and shut" (the inference of "irrefutable") but in this version we need Pearce to explain away his emails.

 

[blueparrot]

Only a couple of emails but he made some very unprofessional comments. Did he make the joke about the death of the UEFA official? Either way for someone operating at a very senior level he showed a total lack of awareness of cyber security. Emails are not (and have never been) a secure method of communication for sensitive information. His lack of professionalism has cost our club and our organisation millions of pounds so far and I have zero trust in him.

Why then do you think the club have kept him in his position ?

 

[cheekybids]

Only a couple of emails but he made some very unprofessional comments. Did he make the joke about the death of the UEFA official? Either way for someone operating at a very senior level he showed a total lack of awareness of cyber security. Emails are not (and have never been) a secure method of communication for sensitive information. His lack of professionalism has cost our club and our organisation millions of pounds so far and I have zero trust in him.

Fcking hell I dread the day my emails get hacked the things they’d find.

Unfortunately we trust people, systems & 99.9% we are ok.