Fluctuation0161
Full Member
Yep. I understand its hard for City fans to look past self interest as a motivation.Maybe they dont condone cheating
Yep. I understand its hard for City fans to look past self interest as a motivation.Maybe they dont condone cheating
I read that bit, but just because CAS have decided that based on what is in front of them, and what they are allowed to study, doesn’t mean it’s true. “The burden of proof” lay with UEFA and they have failed to provide enough of it. That does not mean City are innocent.
sorry, I’ll listen to the expert who has read the 167 page document in 32 seconds rather than the BBC
Nope, and if you had actually read it, you’d see the value of the sponsorship is (a) judged to be immaterial to the case (b) deemed at fair value by both UEFA and CAS.
Your second point just describes pretty much every single legal case ever. There’s a burden of proof. Court decides if it is met. UEFA did not come anywhere close to it. At no point do you see CAS wrangling with a deliberation and the theme throughout is there is very little evidence on which UEFA base their claims. It was evidently a simple decision to make for CAS. Of course City may have been guilty, but CAS basically UEFA’s case was weak, and City’s evidence submitted against it made it especially untenable.
Agreed.Also of it was complete BS City would have welcomed Uefa to look closer at their books as there was nothing to hide right? You don't half look guilty when you act the way they did.
Exactly, and as such, it’s an unsatisfying conclusion. UEFA presented a weak case, with poor evidence and CAS have given a ruling on the information presented and what they were allowed to judge on.
It doesn’t mean City didn’t cheat. We are arguing the same thing here. It’s just you seem to think it’s a lot more positive than it is.
There is no “nope” about it. It’s an opinion based on what we see and an interpretation of that. To me, it’s just as relevant to City’s insane rise as anything else. I don’t really care what CAS think about it.
UEFA not being able to prove anything and/or presenting a poor case is just that. It’s a proclamation based on nothing, and it proves nothing.
UEFA got played and City were able to win a lot of trophies and build insanely quickly. The relief is that you played the system and got off with it.
There's no way Uefa went all this way on a whim. Theres more to this than we are being told.
Also of it was complete BS City would have welcomed Uefa to look closer at their books as there was nothing to hide right? You don't half look guilty when you act the way they did.
We're not arguing the same thing, you made a point about inflated sponsorships and suggested CAS did not look at that or did not have all the information at hand. They did. UEFA always have done too. That was not what was at hand here, but CAS did make a ruling that it was fair value in relation to a point City made that, namely that the fact it was fair value meant UEFA's claims were incoherent (the inference is why would Etihad/Etisalat break the rules to pay sponsorships that were fair value to all involved). CAS agreed with the former point but not that such an inference should be drawn.
You say UEFA could not prove anything and presented a poor case, but are not making the obvious conclusion from that: that the case was weak and poorly presented because the claims they are making are not factual (and actually it was very well presented for such a weak case, as you'd expect with the resources UEFA have). Read the case as well please, you'll see that CAS did not just say "UEFA have next to no evidence", they explicitly talk about the evidence and audited accounts City submitted which made many of the claims unlikely and improbable too.
UEFA had 6 leaked emails out of context, out of 5.5m hacked, and one of them was doctored by combining two emails, and another was found that even if what was inferred from the email transpired it would not have contravened any rules as it was two years before their prohibition. UEFA's case was that therefore this practice, which they could not establish ever even happened in the first place, must have continued after the two years, with literally no evidence. Put bias aside, and consider how ridiculous that is, and that may help you to realise how silly many of UEFA's claims are.
Someone hacked 5.5m emails from City, and out of all that they found 6 which potentially contained underhand information. I guarantee if every big club had 5.5m emails hacked we could also find at least 6 which, out of context, suggest something dubious is going on. CAS heard the case based on those 6 emails and comfortably ruled in City's favour.
That's a great way of admitting you haven't read the case. If you care so much about what we are, or are not, being told, read the case.
How can anyone come up with that they were found not guilty?
OJ was guilty but you know how that went..
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules
How can anyone come up with that they were found not guilty?
OJ was guilty but you know how that went..
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules
Ok, lets come at this another way.
1) Why would UEFA have an agenda against Man City to the point of going after them in this way?
2) Why would Man City obstruct an investigation into their finances?
3) Why would the only sponsors offering that kind of money be so explicitly linked to Man City’s owners?
4) Why would Mancini talk about a second salary?
5) Why would certain players have no links to foreign sides over their entire City careers? (Like Aguero, an Argentine and elite striker, never having a credible link to Barca or Real?)
6) Why would CAS suggest that City should be used as an example for a “severe breach” after showing “blatant disregard“ for the rules of FFP?
7) What benefit do UEFA have from potentially excluding one of the bigger teams from their prestige competition for two years?
I mean, you can keep saying that sponsorships were deemed to have been fair (why they would be at that stage I have no idea), that time barred information wouldn’t have mattered and that the evidence and “audited accounts” were sufficient to make a decisive and irrefutable conclusion, but there are too many questions and it’s too far sizeable a stretch to believe that this was all a petty squabble.
What CAS have done is made a ruling on what they have been presented, nothing more, nothing less.
Just be happy that City have escaped punishment. I think that’s the only decisive and clear victory here.
The CAS panel found these emails did not provide enough evidence to substantiate Uefa’s findings, especially after Etihad’s top executives, such as chief executive Tony Douglas, provided witness statements to argue the sponsorship deals were genuine.
haha, got away with it?Isn't it mad how the Guardian article can portray the ruling in such a different light to our esteemed Man City supporting Abu Dhabi bootlickers on here?
I especially like this bit:
"The Cas panel of three European lawyers decided by a majority 2-1, however, that it would not consider the legitimacy of those Etisalat payments, because they were made more than five years before the CFCB charges were brought in May 2019, so were “time-barred”"
Time-barred. So not considered. The lads on here would have you believe that the whole thing was thrown out as CAS sang songs of great victory about City's innocence.
Can't believe City fans think they have been exonerated. You got away with it, nothing more.
haha, got away with it?
direct from the CAS ruling :
"in the absence of particulars as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channeled through 3rd parties is based on innuendo. And does not meet the requisite standard of proof"
-----
They also mention how the accusation "came from a poisonous tree"
-----
That is normal process. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It I is the way it is always done.One of the charges of siphooning (Etisalat) was dropped due to a questionable definition of time-barring. Man City more or less admitted that one. Man City registered false information about payments after the time bar, but two of the three arbitrators chose to count only the time of payment, which was before the time bar.
In the second and larger case (Etihad, where everyone knows what really happened), there was basically word against word of Citys own people writing emails and witnessing before Cas. The same two arbitrators chose to believe the latter. I think most people can see which ‘tree’ was the most ‘poisonous’ in reality.
A strange thing that two of the three arbitrators where suggested by City, including the chairman.
One thing we know for certain is that there is no corruption involved, because that could never happen with UEFA, nor with the Mansour famiglia.
That is normal process. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It I is the way it is always done.
Anyway, nice to see not all journos are towing the clickbait lines
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ration-18688496.amp?__twitter_impression=true
The City fans in here are like Russians praising a Putin election victory.
Are all city fans this deluded? I don't think its possible. I mean, I understand football is tribal. But the level of denial getting silly now.That is normal process. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It I is the way it is always done.
Anyway, nice to see not all journos are towing the clickbait lines
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ration-18688496.amp?__twitter_impression=true
If I was a city fan my response at this stage would be "feck it, we got away with it". Not "we are completely innocent". It is beyond ridiculous.
haha, got away with it?
direct from the CAS ruling :
"in the absence of particulars as argued by MCFC, UEFA's case with respect to funding being channeled through 3rd parties is based on innuendo. And does not meet the requisite standard of proof"
-----
They also mention how the accusation "came from a poisonous tree"
-----
This one just keeps on walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck….
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...chester-city-emails-cast-doubt-on-cas-verdict
Nevertheless, in this author’s opinion, having now read the CAS Decision, this entire dispute appears over-hyped and demonstrative of an element of desperation from UEFA to pin a charge on MCFC. The absence of cogent evidence from UEFA / the CFCB is astounding and this author is in disbelief that the AC Decision, let alone the Referral Decision, was made on the basis of the evidence available. Neither the CAS nor the purpose and aim of the CLFFPR should be undermined for the CFCB’s decision to proceed with a case that could not be properly proved. Admittedly, however, one upshot of that could be that clubs will be even more vigilant in ensuring their compliance with the CLFFPR to avoid being ardently pursued by UEFA.
Apart from one of the people on the CAS panel who thought they were guilty.anyone who actually reads the details of the final award would find it impossible to say City should have been punished.