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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gordyola said:
City sought damages at the first CAS hearing claiming the leaks by UEFA ,allegedly, had damaged the club’s reputation
This from the CAS verdict page 35 https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

Claims For Damages
129. As noted above, a claim for damages and a request for “an order that UEFA undertakes a full investigation into the sources of the Leaks in order to identify and take disciplinary measures against the identified sources, and takes full, appropriate remedial measures to ensure that strict confidentiality of both any process that may progress before the AC and of this arbitration” cannot be pursued solely, i.e. without an appeal against a decision, in an Appeal Arbitration Proceeding. The correct forum to pursue such a claim – absent any plurality of claims including an appeal against a decision – is the Ordinary Arbitration Proceeding. Thus, in view of the findings above, also the claim for damages must be rejected as inadmissible.
Click to expand...

thanks for that. much clearer than any article mentioning it.
 
Alaricmc said:
Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.
Click to expand...

Excellent post mate..
 
Alaricmc said:
Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.
Click to expand...
It's hard not to comment when they attack the club and fans but they've well and truly nailed their colours to the mast so best not to comment at all. If you make a coherent argument you will attract trolls like flies and the Guardian picks up the traffic and revenue.

Boycott the corporate media and especially the Guardian.
 
Metalartin said:
A small thing really but if His Highness is reserved for the Crown Prince, does that go for everyone or just those connected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dhabi_United_Group

Call me cynical but I'm picturing our twitter journos trying to add HRH references(via edits) into every Wiki article they can find.
"See wikipedia says it's him, so it must be"
Click to expand...

I would imagine it's rather like the UK. Most people here don't know (or care) how to reference the Queen correctly. If I had a pound for every time I'd seen her referred to as "HRH" I'd be nearly as rich as Mansour.

The point is the people who do have regular dealings with her know how she is correctly addressed and referenced. You can bet your bottom dollar that anyone transacting private business for her refers to her in the correct manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.