Soriano stressed that City were not anti-UEFA but were unhappy with the conduct of the UEFA Investigatory Chamber.
It seems tome that the AC chamber must have ignored City's evidence that the sponsorship agreements were in order. It worries me that CAS will do likewise. There is a lot of prejudice against City's Arab ownership. I think the job the liberal press has done on Man City has meant that it is difficult for City to find a fair trial.
I can understand that the UEFA Investigatory Chamber was deeply hostile but I find it difficult to see how an independent Adjudicatory Chamber discounted City's evidence. They've put a biguous and out of context emails over hard evidence which must include documents the like of which PB and David Conn discussed both of whom concluded that the UAE state covered the Etihad Airways sponsorship, and not Sheikh Mansour just as most City fans have maintained since reading the email hacks.. And if Conn, a hostile opponent thunks that, I struggle to see how the Adjudicatory Chamber reached the conclusion they did. Why should CAS look differently on our irrefutable body of evidence? I realise that there is a procedural angle as well. It is the procedural angle that possibly gives us the best hope because I am not sure that CAS will view things that differently than the UEFA AC. Why should they? They are drawn from the same group of people.
If prominent fascists. or Islamists were to defend itself in a commercial dispute, would they receive a fair trial? I doubt it. That's the problem, City have been characterised as state-owned cheats for years and years.
