MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Horse trading will ensue bud, that's my gut feeling anyway.
Yes, I've said before that if City win, they'll want a chair at the top table (or something).
Horse trading will ensue bud, that's my gut feeling anyway.
I think the answer is no liability whatsoever.
The UEFA CFCB Procedural Rules state “Members of the CFCB are not liable for any action, decision or failure to act in
connection with proceedings before the CFCB.”
https://it.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Unless there’s a way around that. I’m assuming that means we can sue UEFA as a body, but not specific individuals within the two chambers?
Is that indisputable fact? I've never seen it reported as such.
A slightly easier comparison is from Swiss Ramble.I am relying on arguments here that people like PB have posted.
It's explained here. I am afraid its lengthy but you can probably skim read it to get the idea.
https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/
You should read them before making any raggy accusationsHmmm. 306 posts in 13 years
I had this discussion with an Arsenal supporting, intelligent, well-read family member.Whilst we're speculating, I"m interested in this newly-embraced and much-touted concept that the rules may be corrupt but we "signed up to them" so it doesn't matter.
Setting aside the idea that you can compete in football without CL money, I'd love to see the "contract" we "signed" up to. Presumably there is some sort of contractual obligation on UEFA to administer the competition and its processes fairly. Even if there isn"t, it would surely be implicit given the required trust between the parties.
Proven breach of that agreement by UEFA would be an interesting situation given that we know the size of the financial penalties UEFA would like to impose on us. And that's before you start on the other financial implications.
You are conflating the IC and the AC's processes. Even if the IC failed to give any consideration to City's submissions, City had another opportunity to make submissions to the AC. The idea that both refused to consider any submissions made is just not right. In short, we will have to do much much better than that to prevail.
City did not agree to the change in the way that players contracted prior to 2010 were treated under FFP. We were reporting under the FFP regulations and at he last moment UEFA changed it's own rules.
This is what City mean by context. None of the journalists have presented this argument. That would be balanced. They don't do that.
You may be right simply because none of us knows for sure at this stage but I wouldn't put anything past a corrupt process run by a corrupt organisation like UEFA. Just look at some of the reported facts about the bias and corruption involved in the case:
- In December 2018 - three months before the start of the IC investigation - UEFA's Chief Investigator Yves Leterme publicly stated that City would be found guilty and banned from the Champions League. This proves that the case was pre-judged (irrespective of any evidence from City whether read or unread) and is one of City's main grievances in their appeal to CAS.
- In a flagrant case of conflict of interest the IC panel included Rick Parry, ex-CEO of Liverpool and self confessed lifelong Liverpool supporter.
- While the investigation was still in progress there were several leaks from someone within UEFA to the New York Times and Associated Press confirming that City would be found guilty and banned. Tariq Panja of the NYT has admitted the leaks came from within UEFA but of course won't name his source.
The three points you have made are all material as to why we may not have received a fair hearing - although it is for CAS to decide. Interestingly CAS referred the case back to UEFA and decided not to make a judgement but these three points were still in play but clearly CAS could not rule on whether we’d received a fair hearing until a judgement was passed down. It does look like UEFA think that CAS has dismissed our concerns re the process and issued what can only be seen as an unprecedented sanction. I think the actions and behaviours of UEFA in the last 2 weeks suggest that we have probably not received a fair hearing... the hearing was probably pre judged and some of those on the AC were certainly conflicted and pre disposed to issuing a punishment. I honestly think a decent QC (and we’ve got the best) will rip the process deployed to pieces and may do so in pre case hearings and document exchanges to the extent that UEFA - or at least their lawyers will know the process won’t stand up to scrutiny. For example Freshfields will no doubt be asking for notes of declared conflicts of interests etc at UEFA - asking for all emails from all AC members that make any reference to City or ADUG. There will be a right data search going on and with a cesspit like UEFA it won’t take long for the cracks to appear.