How would you know they were real & true.The emails are obviously real and true. But will obviously only be a partial view of the picture.
All well and good, but we are trying to discredit those emails, and if our owners haven’t been channeling money into the club via Etihad, then what better way to prove it....
I was just about to write that very post! It follows that it's no surprise how none of the forums experts are representing us at CAS
How would you know they were real & true.
I have been hacked before where my details on a company letterhead were sent to customers asking them to pay to a different account.
At the end of the day emails as evidence are worthless.
I don't think we are trying to discredit those emails.
City can appeal on both the process and the facts of the case, so they don't need to say "here's proof UEFA were wrong", they can just say "Look how they've reached a judgement against us with evidence of wrongdoing"
Probably because we've never claimed them not to be?How would you know they were real & true.
I have been hacked before where my details on a company letterhead were sent to customers asking them to pay to a different account.
At the end of the day emails as evidence are worthless.
City has never denied that the emails are not true. We argued that they have been taken out of context.
Tell em to drink their milk and get on their horse John.I don't see it as a bad thing that people want to discuss this monumental event in our club's history. I don't see it as a bad thing that people are trying to gain a greater understanding of what is a very complex issue. I don't see it as a bad thing that people are trying to offer theories about the legitimacy of our appeal to allay their fears. Nobody is forcing anyone to read the thread and if anyone finds it difficult to follow then they are free to leave without insulting those who wish to stay.
Out of context could mean that they were altered.@hihosilva
This is from the clubs response - "out-of-context materials purportedly hacked or stolen"
A fake email can't be out of context.
The emails are real, and the club has admitted they are (although without spelling it out) in that description.
Not to mention if they were fake, that's the first thing the club would have said.
I know you're taking a very legalistic view of this and that's your area of expertise so I'm not going to argue on a legal basis. I accept you're correct.We never had any contract with ADUG for sponsorship. The contracts were with various other AD based companies. So there is no contract to test with ADUG. If ADUG were owners/controllers/had common owners etc (can't recall all the tests) Etihad then UEFA would have deemed Etihad related (as they did), ADUG itself would remain irrelevant. Again, we then look at the Etihad and City contract. Assuming the obligations are all Etihad's, we don't then go and look at the REVENUE streams or even CASH FLOWS of Etihad. The rules relate to ownership of those entities.
But as I have said Etihad WERE considered related by UEFA despite City's protestations. It was moot because the contract value was not excessive.
These days emails are the most critical evidence in most commercial cases. And the ones leaked from Pearce just the sort of unhelpful ones parties hate to see.How would you know they were real & true.
I have been hacked before where my details on a company letterhead were sent to customers asking them to pay to a different account.
At the end of the day emails as evidence are worthless.
Out of context could mean that they were altered.
Out of context could mean that they were altered.
I know you're taking a very legalistic view of this and that's your area of expertise so I'm not going to argue on a legal basis. I accept you're correct.
But I don't think UEFA will be satisfied by a purely legal view of this. They're out to prove that we received disguised owner investment and we used that to inflate actual sponsorship revenue. And they have, as you've said yourself, only have to prove that on the balance of probabilities. Personally, if there was a smoking gun that showed that, I reckon Der Spiegel would have published it. But they didn't. So I'm confident on that basis.
I suggest you look it upYeah, if you completely change the meaning of "out of context"...
To a layman like me this thread has been invaluable, providing insight and explanations into matters that I don’t really understand.I don't see it as a bad thing that people want to discuss this monumental event in our club's history. I don't see it as a bad thing that people are trying to gain a greater understanding of what is a very complex issue. I don't see it as a bad thing that people are trying to offer theories about the legitimacy of our appeal to allay their fears. Nobody is forcing anyone to read the thread and if anyone finds it difficult to follow then they are free to leave without insulting those who wish to stay.
I know you're taking a very legalistic view of this and that's your area of expertise so I'm not going to argue on a legal basis. I accept you're correct.
But I don't think UEFA will be satisfied by a purely legal view of this. They're out to prove that we received disguised owner investment and we used that to inflate actual sponsorship revenue. And they have, as you've said yourself, only have to prove that on the balance of probabilities. Personally, if there was a smoking gun that showed that, I reckon Der Spiegel would have published it. But they didn't. So I'm confident on that basis.