Spin it this you want, City were found not guilty by an independent body

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Spin it this you want, City were found not guilty by an independent body
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't spin its addressing the full facts. City were found not guilty, but it is incorrect to suggest they were fully vindicated or that there were no technicalities on that judgement.

I didn’t say it did, I said that most of the allegations weren’t covered by it so no one can say we only got off on a technicality (not that time barring is a technicality anyway, tbh).

2 city appointed judges? Whoever is pushing that has misunderstood how arbitration panels are decided as that’s clearly wrong and is proving the point around the reporters tbh. Ditto taking the legal statement literally and disregarding all of the contradictory evidence that led to that conclusion.

Doctored emails were not a technicality

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 minutes ago
I didn’t say it did, I said that most of the allegations weren’t covered by it so no one can say we only got off on a technicality (not that time barring is a technicality anyway, tbh).

2 city appointed judges? Whoever is pushing that has misunderstood how arbitration panels are decided as that’s clearly wrong and is proving the point around the reporters tbh. Ditto taking the legal statement literally and disregarding all of the contradictory evidence that led to that conclusion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean it depends how you want to look at it. Time-barring is pretty common in legal cases so it is not an outrageous defence or anything like that. Particularly in cases like this where the evidence seems to have been strongest for the tome-barred offence it will be a technicality because it seems that City did actually commit the offences but it was just long enough ago that they couldn't be charged. That is, by most definitions, a technicality.

As for the 2 city appointed judges - is this even in dispute? It seems accepted that both sides got to appoint one judge each and that standard practice is that CAS independently appoints the chair, but that city were allowed to nominate the chair in this case. This doesnt automatically mean that the appointee was biased or lacked independence but it is, if true, an unusual departure from standard practice. For full clarity it appears the UEFA didn't object to any of the appointees.

Saying it is city appointed absolutely is in dispute given the insinuation, "City proposed" I would agree with. It was still for both UEFA and then both arbiters to agree to it, as per standard practice.

On the time barred allegation, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing about that allegation or the merits of it, I'm arguing the interpretation that has happened to this point that we got off on a technicality overall due to all of it being time barred, which I've seen people suggest multiple times since the initial judgment came out.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 41 minutes ago
Saying it is city appointed absolutely is in dispute given the insinuation, "City proposed" I would agree with. It was still for both UEFA and then both arbiters to agree to it, as per standard practice.

On the time barred allegation, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing about that allegation or the merits of it, I'm arguing the interpretation that has happened to this point that we got off on a technicality overall due to all of it being time barred, which I've seen people suggest multiple times since the initial judgment came out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah I understand - apologies that was a poor choice of word from me. I did clarify in my previous post that UEFA didn't object to the appointments.

Similar with the time-barred stuff. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all of City's alleged breaches were only dismissed because they were barred. My understanding is that the Etihad ones were dismissed due to insufficient evidence but that the ones regarding Etisalat(?) Were time-barred. The wording suggests that there might be some merit to these allegations and so the fact that they were time-barred will always lead to some people saying it was a technicality.

It also goes the other way and CAS stated that there were legitimate grounds for charges and so people claiming a witch-hunt or personal vendetta are incorrect and it also means that Coty's failure to co-operate was not appropriate. This will, rightly or wrongly, lead some people to believe that the reason they didn't co-operate is because they knew they had something to hide.

As I said, it is a partial vindication rather than a full vindication.

Any vindication is good in my book

It’s not like we were charged with a criminal offence like bribery or match fixing

There are some clubs who think nothing of hacking the computers of rival clubs

City were stupid not to take that to court

No worries, I just didn't want people to get the impression that it was two judges appointed directly by us.

In terms of the vindication, it's as full as it was ever going to get and it was always going to go to CAS as the key argument that we went with during the initial proceedings was that the emails should have been inadmissable and so didn't support anything post that point. Providing the full emails to UEFA would have automatically made them admissable, dismissing our point in the first place.

I don't have an issue with UEFA with it tbh, other than that I don't see most of it as being close to comfortable satisfaction of proof even without us showing all of the additional evidence.

Just to clarify, that was CAS's findings too, so it depends what you mean by legitimate grounds for charges. If you're saying they were able to, then yes. If you're saying they should have done, then no.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City were stupid not to take that to court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The next time it happens im sure there will be criminal and civil actions. Some clubs are all out if goodwill. City were way too quick to forgive what was clear cheating.

I haven't followed the case at all, just read the headlines and am not really bothered what happened.
But the article in the Guardian today doesn't show you as being squeaky clean.

Well there's a surprise!

David Conn wallowing in his own bitterness

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
David Conn wallowing in his own bitterness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That will be famous Manchester City fan David Conn?

That’s been irrelevant for quite a while now. That’s a different topic of conversation though (and mostly not for a public forum)

Fair enough, really I couldn't care less. I always enjoyed going to Main Road, and my golfing partner was a City fan so there was loads of banter.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 21 hours, 48 minutes ago
I haven't followed the case at all, just read the headlines and am not really bothered what happened.
But the article in the Guardian today doesn't show you as being squeaky clean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The same Guardian who posted an article yesterday with a picture of the wrong black man as the photo? Don’t know their ar5e from their elbow that lot!

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
No worries, I just didn't want people to get the impression that it was two judges appointed directly by us.

In terms of the vindication, it's as full as it was ever going to get and it was always going to go to CAS as the key argument that we went with during the initial proceedings was that the emails should have been inadmissable and so didn't support anything post that point. Providing the full emails to UEFA would have automatically made them admissable, dismissing our point in the first place.

I don't have an issue with UEFA with it tbh, other than that I don't see most of it as being close to comfortable satisfaction of proof even without us showing all of the additional evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Further email leaks since the verdict detailing a payment to Etihad from Simon Pearce to Etihad for the "sponsorship amount". Seems to directly contradict Pearce own stated defence that previous emails questioning who was paying the sponsorship were just because there was “some confusion among individuals at the club”.

Wasn't that email dated 2010, long before FFP was even thought of, or was it the one that mentions 'His Highness', which could refer to literally 1000's of people in the Arab world?

Further email leaks eh?

What, are Der Spiegel drip feeding information now?

Nick Harris has tweeted about this, drawing attention to an email allegedly sent in 2013...

I think this will continue as long as there's a possibilty we could play Bayern in the CL.