M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Erm, then we wouldn't be banned. The point is that for CAS to consider a ban (of any kind) is upheld, it will have to conclude, at least: a) City are in breach of FFP b) that is a second breach ie a breach of the second chance c) that UEFA's allegations (which must amount to saying that at least City concealed the "truth") are well founded. In those circumstances, how is a 2 year ban not proportionate.
Co-operation is a red herring. If CAS find City did not inflate the sponsorship, they are not going to say "but we still think it's worthy a 1 year ban because of a failure to cooperate". If City are found to have breached, co-operation is neither here nor there.
I don’t think he’s saying CAS will impose a ban of some sort if we’re innocent of everything else except this so called lack of co-operation. I read what @Centurions said as being aimed at UEFA instead, and a scenario (purely hypothetical of course) that once everything was considered, they (UEFA) realised there was no case to answer but saw their arse so much (maybe because of the rumours that we rejected a much lesser punishment) that they hit us with a 2 year ban for a lack of co-operation, ie: not accepting a much lesser punishment.
As I say, all purely hypothetical and may well be bollocks but this is UEFA remember and I wouldn’t put anything past them.