It can have an impact. City can show other clubs have done similar things and have not been investigated and punished. Why would they be punished then if the investigation is fair ?As much as I like the idea, I don't think CAS will be interested in that.
This is not a precedent because UEFA did not accept its own advice and did not second guess the sponsorship. Nor has UEFA's competence in this area been established by precedent.
I think the clock is frozen if proceedings start within time.
It wasn't considered because they didn't have time. They had to pass the case to the AC by 15th May, to avoud it being timed-out, as it would have been over 5 years ago and therefore outside their own limitation on reopening a case. They'd only opened the case a couple of months before.I am unsure myself as well tbh.
No idea how this irrefutable evidence ended up not being considered by UEFA.
I think it is time to end this discussion, for everyone’s sake.
As far as I can see he thinks it likely CAS will reduce the ban to one year? You can be a lot more pessimistic than that. He's entitled to his opinion even if not everyone agrees with it. Let's not get like like RAWK.
So looking at the timeline of events again. We submitted our 200 page document to the IC one day before the equivalent of the statute of limitations. Wonder if that was deliberate or just that UEFA hadn't given us enough time to gather the evidence. I can just see the IC's response when they received this:
City to IC: Here's our evidence to refute the allegations you've made against us.
IC members discussion: We have 1 day to read and understand all this information before we run out of time to charge them. Don't suppose we get paid enough for overtime do we? Nah, let's just go with what we have and pass it upstairs and the AC can take the fall if shit goes sideways.
No they should keep quiet and say nothing, until they announce their decision. That’s normal, not odd, fucking social media ageIt doesn’t, as you said you weren’t sure why they would even be commenting, which is an odd thing to say unless you haven’t been following the situation leading up to UEFA’s announcement.
If you haven't, then fair enough.
Cheers, bad phraseology on my partit wasn't the appeal they said "was not without merit" that was the accusation of the leaks from within UEFA/the media
Did i say UEFA is right ?Emails are not bank statements.
Writing something down doesn't mean it happens.
How can you and thousands of others not understand this simple fact?
Not everyone has the same education or ability. I would have thought you would appreciate that as a teacherGrammar (and manners) maketh man.
Yes, but only part, i guess, is time barred.They hadn't though, as the 2019 case was initiated after 5 years had passed from the start of the period within which the alleged breaches occurred.
From reading Stefan Borson's piece on the 9320 blog this may be one of our strongest arguments. It's one thing to use illegally obtained e-mails but it's quite another to use them as a basis to support a time-barred investigation.
Colin, I recently re visited the leaked/hacked emails on Der Spiegels website and the email laid out in copy defo says ADUG provided the additional funds. Do you suppose that's a mistake by Pearce, or an instance indicating those emails are fabricated either in part or otherwise?from @PrestwichBlue2
I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was part of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Page 14 http://www.openandfairskies.com/wp-...08/Partnership-Rebuttal-Filing-DOT-Aug-24.pdf
Fairly sure there is a misunderstanding.No they should keep quiet and say nothing, until they announce their decision. That’s normal, not odd, fucking social media age
It wasn't considered because they didn't have time. They had to pass the case to the AC by 15th May, to avoud it being timed-out, as it would have been over 5 years ago and therefore outside their own limitation on reopening a case. They'd only opened the case a couple of months before.
But there's a doubt as to whether that date was even the valid one, as it totally depends on when the breach actually occurred. If CAS decides it was before 16th May 2014 then they'll have been out of time and i assume the case will be dropped.
Both City and UEFA get to pick one sitting judge each on a panel of three.
It will come down to who the 'independent' is.