There has been some speculation about City's defence in the press but it is much more limited than the speculation you'll read on here. City has revealed nothing about the evidence or the arguments it will use in court because one of the arguments used in the first appeal to CAS was that information had been leaked from the IC in what is supposed to be a confidential process and so mounting our defence in the press would almost certainly be seen as prejudicing the case. Lord Pannick ia apparently quite a performer in court and we wouldn't want to spoil the effect by letting everyone know what lines he was going to deliver! One other fairly obvious reason for lack of speculation in the press of what our defence MIGHT be is lack of interest - to the press we're guilty and they simply wish to see us hanged, drawn and quartered. Suggesting we can challenge that guilty verdict is tantamount to treason, although, to be fair, in the immediate aftermath of the AC's decision the BBC ended a long report with the comment that City were confident of proving they had done nothing wrong.
can you point me in the direction of the bbc article ? Did it actually say much I mean saying we are saying we have done nothing wrong is not really explaining our defense. The stuff I have seen that outlines our defense I think from memory comes from blogs and things rather than papers like sun star telegraph mail times etc
also just because we won’t say what our defense is has not stopped people on her posting lots of details yet it seems to have stopped the media It’s a matter of public record who owns Etihad and the original settlement with UEFA and the possible timing issue and international standard around related parties as are our accounts etc yet this does not seem to get mentioned outside of blue moon you would have thought journalist could use google and go on companies house etc