I don't think there can be much doubt that the majority of the three sponsorships originated from another party. But Der Spiegel added 2 + 2 and came up with a number that's far larger than 4. They took a reference to 'HH will arrange the additional funding' to mean Sheikh Mansour would pay the money. That's demonstrably incorrect. The far greater likelihood is that 'HH' was MBZ, not Sheikh Mansour, and the money originated from the Executive Council, not ADUG.
There's also evidence in the emails that we asked for the money to be paid as though it came from the sponsors. Der Spiegel took that as evidence of wrongdoing whereas it's far more likely that the EC sent the additional funding either directly to City or to ADUG, and we then asked them to change that to show that it came from the sponsors. So we did the right thing, which Der Spiegel presented as evidence of wrongdoing.
The problem is that the Der Spiegel "evidence" appears to be all UEFA has, so you can understand why they pursued this. If a bent copper tries to frame someone, the CPS won't carry out a forensic examination of the case; they'll simply examine whether, on the basis of the evidence that the police have submitted, there's a clear public interest in prosecution and a reasonable chance of success. We know Leterme was bent, allowing a PSG sponsorship far in excess of the value suggested by the experts he appointed, to go through. The Adjudicatory Chamber was the CPS equivalent and CAS should be the equivalent of a courtrooms, where a defence team can tear the prosecution's case to shreds for the first time.
So when you say "...they (UEFA) still proceeded..." and take that as evidence of a strong case, you fall into the same trap that anyone taking the Der Spiegel articles at face value, without context, fell into. You also forget that it's not really UEFA, as Ceferin is desperately trying to dissociate himself from this. We know who's behind this and they're not interested in truth or justice.
Oh Frank, you don't seem to have noticed that UEFA is just the disposable weapon of the cartel clubs. They will be more delighted if it's us but whichever party is damaged is a win and both would be a bonus.
Very good point George. UEFA stands in the way of the Cartel getting their European Super League. They'd be equally happy to see us take UEFA down as to see UEFA take us down. So they see it as a win-win but some of them are going to end up as the casualties here.Oh Frank, you don't seem to have noticed that UEFA is just the disposable weapon of the cartel clubs. They will be more delighted if it's us but whichever party is damaged is a win and both would be a bonus.
Exactly UEFA are collateral damage , the Cartel are in a win - win situation , particularly if none of their involvement comes out in the hearing.Oh Frank, you don't seem to have noticed that UEFA is just the disposable weapon of the cartel clubs. They will be more delighted if it's us but whichever party is damaged is a win and both would be a bonus.
The above bit has been mentioned several times here - there surely must be something more to the UEFA side of things to make it credible.
It seems very strange.
Not going to happen, we all know it would be...10 things that could happen when City are found guilty.
That seems logical to me, but the words of others suggest I might be giving them too much credit
Fair point.
I think some of it is just that it is more difficult to imagine what else backs up the case. City don't seem to have just ignored the claims, so it's not unopposed.
Possibly but they have always seen themselves as above normal law ie special rules that they write for themselves. This hubris continues but I think they are quite happy to sacrifice UEFA and its officers then move on to form another Organisation that does as it is told.The above bit has been mentioned several times here - there surely must be something more to the UEFA side of things to make it credible.
It seems very strange.