Seems we have been here before. A time when we lost half (?) our team to the rags, without concrete proof.I still get the feeling that UEFA are sitting on their hands waiting for CAS to throw the case out for breach of due process, allowing UEFA to do the shoulder-shrugging ‘we did our best, but they got off on a technicality’ bit.
That way, the substantive issues do not need to be dealt with, but the implications of wrong-doing still hang over us, allowing the ‘no smoke without fire’ brigade to carry on with their thinly veiled insinuations.
I think this was the intention all along, hence the leaks which weakened both their chance of their case succeeding, but damaged our reputation at the same time.
Devious behaviour from devious people.
That's absolutely what they're hoping in my view. They know their case is paper-thin and that they had to ignore due process and rush it through to meet the 5-year statute of limitations. CAS getting them out of the shit suits them nicely as they then can't be challenged on the whole principle and operation of FFP.I still get the feeling that UEFA are sitting on their hands waiting for CAS to throw the case out for breach of due process, allowing UEFA to do the shoulder-shrugging ‘we did our best, but they got off on a technicality’ bit.
That way, the substantive issues do not need to be dealt with, but the implications of wrong-doing still hang over us, allowing the ‘no smoke without fire’ brigade to carry on with their thinly veiled insinuations.
I think this was the intention all along, hence the leaks which weakened both their chance of their case succeeding, but damaged our reputation at the same time.
Devious behaviour from devious people.
They don't actually need any of that stuff bud, they've got social media nowadays. We've already been found guilty, we're just waiting to find out whether it's the National League North Premiere or Division 1 they're relegating us to.I'd love to know what evidence UEFA actually have. I deal with investigations involving forensic evidence from computers all the time and there are strict protocols concerning the integrity of that evidence.
Ignoring the legality or otherwise of hacked emails, the very act of interference with the data obtained renders it potentially corrupted. And that's before consideration of the possibility that the contents of the emails have been altered deliberately or otherwise. In short, none of the emails would be admitted in a proper Court or tribunal for thise reasons alone.
I'm sure you're right, but CAS seem in no hurry to rule on our appeal based on unfair process. Why would this be?That's absolutely what they're hoping in my view. They know their case is paper-thin and that they had to ignore due process and rush it through to meet the 5-year statute of limitations. CAS getting them out of the shit suits them nicely as they then can't be challenged on the whole principle and operation of FFP.
I'm sure you're right, but CAS seem in no hurry to rule on our appeal based on unfair process. Why would this be?
Regarding apologies from the press, Sayeed of the Times wrote two articles about us. He got most of his facts wrong, left out bits that did not bolster his case, and went right over the top in suggesting punishments. Er, Sayeed, you have to be found guilty first! But he also gave a hostage to fortune by saying he would issue a public apology, if he were proved wrong. We all know he will weasel out of it, so, when we are exhonorated, everybody here should write a stiff letter to the Times and give Sayeed both barrels.With the length of time this is taking (when the media said it was an open & shut case) I'd suggest they have either very little to try and pin on us or they're shitting it actually giving a decision.
I look forward to the slug pack of media for example Dan the Man giving a grovelling live apology...
Maybe, but it seems odd that in an ongoing case a question of process is not settled quickly.Backlog?
He's a Table Tennis cheat as well as a smug fucker.Regarding apologies from the press, Sayeed of the Times wrote two articles about us. He got most of his facts wrong, left out bits that did not bolster his case, and went right over the top in suggesting punishments. Er, Sayeed, you have to be found guilty first! But he also gave a hostage to fortune by saying he would issue a public apology, if he were proved wrong. We all know he will weasel out of it, so, when we are exhonorated, everybody here should write a stiff letter to the Times and give Sayeed both barrels.
Regarding apologies from the press, Sayeed of the Times wrote two articles about us. He got most of his facts wrong, left out bits that did not bolster his case, and went right over the top in suggesting punishments. Er, Sayeed, you have to be found guilty first! But he also gave a hostage to fortune by saying he would issue a public apology, if he were proved wrong. We all know he will weasel out of it, so, when we are exhonorated, everybody here should write a stiff letter to the Times and give Sayeed both barrels.
This has probably been answered but why is it taking so long for them to announce anything. Surely it can't be so complicated it takes months to decide. How much evidence can you examine.
It would be difficult. For example he stated that we were being investigated over several years of accounts. While that is wrong, it is probably not actionable. He suggested that our ADhabi related sponsorships were all exaggerated and represented the bulk of our commercial income, again wrong but nearer the limit. He used heavy irony: "city execs must be marketing geniuses". Given all the hooha, he would probably get away with the defence of fair comment in a matter of public interest, even tho' it was not fair in layman's terms.In reply to KS55. if the article by Sayeed is wrong, we do have the point of law to use. So we can take both him and his paper The Times to court and sue them both for libel. If the club did this they could ask for damages in the £millions and also ask for an apology as well.
This has probably been answered but why is it taking so long for them to announce anything. Surely it can't be so complicated it takes months to decide. How much evidence can you examine.
CAS were reported to have called for observations and evidence from both sides almost as soon as the appeal was lodged. Did this evidence take for ever to be submitted? City already had a large dossier of "irrefutable evidence." What did UEFA have? GUESS: CAS and UEFA in (pre trial) discussions: " So what is wrong about City's evidence? Did you discuss it with them?. They say you just ignored it" UEFA on the hook and squirming.According to the CAS website it isn't even a date in the pipeline .