BillyShears
Well-Known Member
Good to see @BillyShears and @Didsbury Dave back, though not sure about the pervading air of pessimism.
As far I can surmise there’s no way that Ceferin would be in a position to agree any deal where City wouldn’t get a ban, especially in the light of Infantino deal last time around. Equally City wouldn’t agree to a ban bearing in mind as far as City are concerned we’ve done our time.
The IC investigation was very possibly rushed due to time pressures, equally City were never likely to engage to heavily with UEFA on the basis that the source of their evidence were emails that may not have been lawfully obtained.
Once the IC investigation concluded we were only going to get a ban. At this point City must only be looking at CAS. As if they were banned they had that recourse, if they agreed to a ban then no right to appeal.
As a result City are likely to contest the legality or otherwise of UEFA’s evidence as an initial point before getting into issues of fair procedure, proportionality and double punishment. These are largely points that could only be made to CAS.
TLDR ultimately despite the views on here, this case once opened was only ever going to be decided by CAS as neither City could never agree to a mutually acceptable deal.
I think the TLDR is a fair summation.
I guess that my overriding sense is still that this was a thorny, political, hot potato that actually could've been predicted from the moment the leaks dropped and you saw the first headlines from guys like Tebas saying that something should be done. In that climate I feel that a level of diplomacy between City and UEFA would've helped.
It's not so much that I'm pessimistic that City are definitely losing - I'm just not buying the bullishness from City that this is open and shut and there will be clear vindication for us at the end of it.