The Official Chelsea FC Thread

[Bredbury Blue]

3 hours ago, stament said:

They did win but UEFA dragged their heels which aided them immensely.

 

Sum num naa UEFA ????

[Bredbury Blue]

4 hours ago, stament said:

In addition both City & PSG had secret agreement for breaches of FPP.  I would say that based on that someone at UEFA likes City or PSG or maybe likes something else more....

 

"Certain facts remain, like the one that they breached FFP rules and agreed a settlement in 2014 that was, effectively, a plea bargain (so too did PSG, for that matter.) That is not going to change and perceptions of that are not going to change."

 

No idea about PSG, but you are saying City and UEFA had a secret agreement for breaches of FFP? Tell us more, because this secret agreement is a new one for City fans. Over to you to give us some details/facts.

 

What we do know is that in the first UEFA/City dispute, City did not agree with UEFA that City had breached FFP. City however eventually, and reluctantly, took the commercial decision to work with UEFA instead of continuing to fight them, so City agreed and reached a Settlement Agreement (not a secret agreement) with Uefa which resolved all open matters between the parties, was based on comprehensive information disclosure and saw City being hit with a £49million euro fine, with £32million of that suspended, plus a transfer spending limit a cap on their wage bill and the imposition of a 21-man squad for Champions League. 

 

In the 2020 CAS Award it states that in the Settlement Agreement it "specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR". Very important - City have never admitted breaching FFP which is why City forced the second UEFA/City dispute in to CAS for a court of law to decide upon, not UEFA.

 

Apologies, this is the Chelsea thread

 

[stament]

21 hours ago, mrbojangles said:

 

 

Your first 3 words were enough. UEFA didn't drag their heels, they used as much time as possible to get as much evidence (from illegal sources) as they could for their kangaroo court.

 

Apologies, this is the Chelsea thread

 

17 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

Not quite sure how you can say that. UEFA banned City from European competition for two years (2020/21 and 2021/22) and fined us €30 million. If my memory serves me right, the 2 years ban, not a 1 year ban expected, was a big surprise at the time to everybody. UEFA went in hard.

 

You are forgetting the previous count which they secretly agreed. This wasn't the first infringement.....  but who new besides City, UEFA and the money ????????

[stament]

17 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

No idea about PSG, but you are saying City and UEFA had a secret agreement for breaches of FFP? Tell us more, because this secret agreement is a new one for City fans. Over to you to give us some details/facts.

 

What we do know is that in the first UEFA/City dispute, City did not agree with UEFA that City had breached FFP. City however eventually, and reluctantly, took the commercial decision to work with UEFA instead of continuing to fight them, so City agreed and reached a Settlement Agreement (not a secret agreement) with Uefa which resolved all open matters between the parties, was based on comprehensive information disclosure and saw City being hit with a £49million euro fine, with £32million of that suspended, plus a transfer spending limit a cap on their wage bill and the imposition of a 21-man squad for Champions League. 

 

In the 2020 CAS Award it states that in the Settlement Agreement it "specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR". Very important - City have never admitted breaching FFP which is why City forced the second UEFA/City dispute in to CAS for a court of law to decide upon, not UEFA.

 

Apologies, this is the Chelsea thread

 

It's not a secret not but it was a secret before. Of course we only knew about this because of the football leaks. 

 

No need to apologise I mean it must be quite lonely on the City forum ????

[stament]

I have a feeling Aguero will score against us like he always does....

[jellydog]

28 minutes ago, stament said:

I have a feeling Aguero will score against us like he always does....

He ain't playing.

[Bredbury Blue]

2 hours ago, stament said:

You are forgetting the previous count which they secretly agreed.

 

2 hours ago, stament said:

Of course we only knew about this because of the football leaks. 

 

What is it with you and secret agreements?

 

Both City and UEFA released statements (press release) regarding the SETTLEMENT agreement reached on 14 May 2014. Here's the intro to Uefa

 

Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber:
Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited
Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club
Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club
Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)(b) and Article 15 of the
Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.
The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons
2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will
be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are
described further below..."

 

As referred to in the CAS Award, the SETTLEMENT agreement includes a statement that City did not accept that they had breached FFP.

 

Anymore secret agreements which were not secret agreements you wish to discuss?

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

2 hours ago, stament said:

I have a feeling Aguero will score against us like he always does....

I have a feeling he won't.

 

[stament]

16 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

 

What is it with you and secret agreements?

 

Both City and UEFA released statements (press release) regarding the SETTLEMENT agreement reached on 14 May 2014. Here's the intro to Uefa

 

Decision of the Chief Investigator of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber:
Settlement Agreement with Manchester City Football Club Limited
Following an investigation under the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations (“CLFFPR”) a settlement agreement was concluded between the UEFA Club
Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) Chief Investigator and Manchester City Football Club
Limited ("Manchester City") on the basis of Article 14 (1)(b) and Article 15 of the
Procedural Rules governing the CFCB.
The settlement was concluded on 16 May 2014 and covers the three sporting seasons
2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. For the duration of the settlement, Manchester City will
be subject to on-going restrictions which have been agreed by the club and which are
described further below..."

 

As referred to in the CAS Award, the SETTLEMENT agreement includes a statement that City did not accept that they had breached FFP.

 

Anymore secret agreements which were not secret agreements you wish to discuss?

 

 

And that settlement had some dirty background behaviour too.  Backdated deals, dodgy deals, etc.....

 

We all know it... Clear indication that UEFA do like City as Infantino negotiated a reduced FFP fine ????, what did he get in return one wonders....

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-exposed-bending-the-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html

 

And here's another one.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20181103-uefa-football-leaks-psg-man-city-financial-fair-play-rules-platini-infantino-sarkozy-fifa

 

Plenty of others out there.....

 

Personally I agree with Wenger that FFP should be scrapped as some teams don't comply so what's the point.

 

Here's to a good game tonight.

[Bredbury Blue]

4 hours ago, stament said:

And that settlement had some dirty background behaviour too.  Backdated deals, dodgy deals, etc.....

 

We all know it... Clear indication that UEFA do like City as Infantino negotiated a reduced FFP fine ????, what did he get in return one wonders....

 

 

Jeez you make some <deleted> up don’t you to suit your position/argument, but go then, I’ll bite.

 

So you know as a fact do you that the UEFA/MCFC 2014 Settlement Agreement refers to “dirty background behaviour too.  Backdated deals, dodgy deals, etc”,  so you must have read the Settlement Agreement then.

 

I don’t think you have read it but are making up those lazy allegations, but if you did read it then you’ll have no problem posting a link to the Settlement Agreement document so we can all read about the (made-up nonsense) you allege.

 

Over to you.

 

 

Apologies, this is the Chelsea thread.

[Bredbury Blue]

4 hours ago, stament said:

 

https://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-exposed-bending-the-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html

 

And here's another one.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20181103-uefa-football-leaks-psg-man-city-financial-fair-play-rules-platini-infantino-sarkozy-fifa

 

Plenty of others out there.....

 

Personally I agree with Wenger that FFP should be scrapped as some teams don't comply so what's the point.

 

You have posted two old links and say that there are “Plenty of others out there...”. Correct , there’s loads of <deleted> out there.

 

The important point is that UEFA brought their case against City, based upon Der Spiegel emails hacked by the Portuguese lad. City’s position on the Der Spiegel emails used by UEFA was “we will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”

 

The case against City – Leaked Emails were the main driving force behind UEFA's arguments - was considered by the Court of Arbitration who found in City’s favour, that UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove their statements of wrongdoing. UEFA’s entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed.

 

We are all familiar with the presumption of innocence, that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Well UEFA FAILED AS THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOUND IN CITY’S FAVOUR AND UEFA’S 2 SEASON BAN WAS OVERTURNED, however the problem City face is that <deleted> sticks and even if all the <deleted> falls of the wall it leaves a stain and people like you will continue to grab any old article off the internet which alleges City’s wrongdoing for which City have never been found guilty of in a Court of Law. Unfair, but something we have to live with.

 

PS. I urge you to read familiarise yourself with the full CAS Award pdf which is available on t’internet (and stop reading crappy old articles) – it’s interesting stuff.

 

 

Apologies, this is the Chelsea thread

 

 

 

Basic summary of the CAS's document explaining the Man City v. UEFA decision (copied from t’internet)

 

The document is very thorough, as it contains a detailed description of the Parties, events and law involved. It contains the content of the documents involved. It even contains a layperson-friendly explanation of the FFP system (starting at 109. on page 41). However, most of the first half of it is filled with descriptions of the arguments made by the 2 sides, which aren't helpful to us since there are clear legal and factual discrepancies between them.

 

Summary of main findings:

 

•The Leaked Emails were the main driving force behind UEFA's arguments. Man City produced the original documents when asked to do so. Thus, it was determined that while the leaked versions were somewhat cherry-picked, "this did NOT affect the veracity of the Leaked Emails on which UEFA primarily built its case".

•Man City's argument that the Leaked Emails should be inadmissible FAILS because of the strong public interest involved. While the leaks were illegal (and the person responsible is currently serving a prison sentence in Portugal), UEFA did not partake in the leak, and the fact that multiple articles were printed in multiple media outlets only further proves that the public interest outweighs Man City's interest.

•Man City's allegations that the CFCB violated their due process rights (with the multiple leaks from within the Investigatory Committee, plus the allegedly expedited process) are NOT sufficiently substantiated by the evidence and arguments they produced.

•Man City's argument that the Settlement Agreement the club made with UEFA in 2014 precludes UEFA from pursuing this case is NOT compelling; the issues at hand are not covered by the Settlement Agreement.

•With regards to the idea that the charges are time-barred, CAS considered that the arguments presented by Man City and UEFA were BOTH wrong, and that in reality only "crimes" committed after the 15th of May 2014 may be prosecuted. This cuts out part (less than half) of the alleged "crimes".

(!) •With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").

(!) • UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.

(!) •On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accounting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).

(!) •CAS found that most of the requests for evidence made by the CFCB were reasonable, but that Man City was "very reluctant and at times uncooperative" with regards to producing them. There are 2 specific examples mentioned, and they comprise the reason for the fine.

•UEFA recognized that Man City only partially produced the desired documents, yet explicitly accepted the fact that NO inference can be made from this fact (that is, they CAN'T claim that the reason Man City was uncooperative was because they hid incriminating evidence). They did this in order to get a rapid process, one that reached its conclusion before the start of the 2020/21 season.

TL;DR: UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove these statements. Their entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed. A small part of the offenses were time-barred (those made prior to May 15, 2014). Basically, CAS recognized that UEFA felt pressured to start the investigation (as the leaks published in multiple news agencies were compelling enough to start an investigation, but not sufficient to prove the end result) and to finish it before the start of the next season.

 

[keithsimmonds]

My one wish...this does not go to pens....for obvious reasons ????????????   r u watching Sarri...

[jellydog]

36 minutes ago, keithsimmonds said:

My one wish...this does not go to pens....for obvious reasons ????????????   r u watching Sarri...

Could be 2-0 Chelsea by now with Alonso on instead of Chilly.:)

[stament]

10 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

You have posted two old links and say that there are “Plenty of others out there...”. Correct , there’s loads of <deleted> out there.

 

The important point is that UEFA brought their case against City, based upon Der Spiegel emails hacked by the Portuguese lad. City’s position on the Der Spiegel emails used by UEFA was “we will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”

 

The case against City – Leaked Emails were the main driving force behind UEFA's arguments - was considered by the Court of Arbitration who found in City’s favour, that UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove their statements of wrongdoing. UEFA’s entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed.

 

We are all familiar with the presumption of innocence, that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. In a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Well UEFA FAILED AS THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOUND IN CITY’S FAVOUR AND UEFA’S 2 SEASON BAN WAS OVERTURNED, however the problem City face is that <deleted> sticks and even if all the <deleted> falls of the wall it leaves a stain and people like you will continue to grab any old article off the internet which alleges City’s wrongdoing for which City have never been found guilty of in a Court of Law. Unfair, but something we have to live with.

 

PS. I urge you to read familiarise yourself with the full CAS Award pdf which is available on t’internet (and stop reading crappy old articles) – it’s interesting stuff.

 

 

Apologies, this is the Chelsea thread

 

 

 

Basic summary of the CAS's document explaining the Man City v. UEFA decision (copied from t’internet)

 

 

The document is very thorough, as it contains a detailed description of the Parties, events and law involved. It contains the content of the documents involved. It even contains a layperson-friendly explanation of the FFP system (starting at 109. on page 41). However, most of the first half of it is filled with descriptions of the arguments made by the 2 sides, which aren't helpful to us since there are clear legal and factual discrepancies between them.

 

Summary of main findings:

 

•The Leaked Emails were the main driving force behind UEFA's arguments. Man City produced the original documents when asked to do so. Thus, it was determined that while the leaked versions were somewhat cherry-picked, "this did NOT affect the veracity of the Leaked Emails on which UEFA primarily built its case".

•Man City's argument that the Leaked Emails should be inadmissible FAILS because of the strong public interest involved. While the leaks were illegal (and the person responsible is currently serving a prison sentence in Portugal), UEFA did not partake in the leak, and the fact that multiple articles were printed in multiple media outlets only further proves that the public interest outweighs Man City's interest.

•Man City's allegations that the CFCB violated their due process rights (with the multiple leaks from within the Investigatory Committee, plus the allegedly expedited process) are NOT sufficiently substantiated by the evidence and arguments they produced.

•Man City's argument that the Settlement Agreement the club made with UEFA in 2014 precludes UEFA from pursuing this case is NOT compelling; the issues at hand are not covered by the Settlement Agreement.

•With regards to the idea that the charges are time-barred, CAS considered that the arguments presented by Man City and UEFA were BOTH wrong, and that in reality only "crimes" committed after the 15th of May 2014 may be prosecuted. This cuts out part (less than half) of the alleged "crimes".

(!) •With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").

(!) • UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.

(!) •On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accounting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).

(!) •CAS found that most of the requests for evidence made by the CFCB were reasonable, but that Man City was "very reluctant and at times uncooperative" with regards to producing them. There are 2 specific examples mentioned, and they comprise the reason for the fine.

•UEFA recognized that Man City only partially produced the desired documents, yet explicitly accepted the fact that NO inference can be made from this fact (that is, they CAN'T claim that the reason Man City was uncooperative was because they hid incriminating evidence). They did this in order to get a rapid process, one that reached its conclusion before the start of the 2020/21 season.

TL;DR: UEFA simply did not produce the evidence necessary to prove these statements. Their entire case rested on the Leaked Emails, and CAS could not determine that the crimes mentioned were in fact executed. A small part of the offenses were time-barred (those made prior to May 15, 2014). Basically, CAS recognized that UEFA felt pressured to start the investigation (as the leaks published in multiple news agencies were compelling enough to start an investigation, but not sufficient to prove the end result) and to finish it before the start of the next season.

 

There mere fact that they didn't prove it is hardly enough to say City didn't act with integrity. Look at the emails, a senior director suggesting backdating official documents, etc.  Yes FIFA couldn't probs beyond reasonable doubt but by the time City had time to cook the books and align their stories no doubt. The fact is there was willingness to cheat as shown in the emails. That to me isn't sporting. And everyone knows the deals are inflated and not at arm's length, same at PSG.

 

But well done you did the crime but not the time. This often happens in the real world too. OJ anyone....

 

Anyway, no need to keep apologising for posting on our thread, I can clear see you enjoy the real blue forum.

 

GREAT result today, I wish you the very best of luck for next week.

 

 

 

[stament]

3 hours ago, jellydog said:

Could be 2-0 Chelsea by now with Alonso on instead of Chilly.:)

I will settle for 1-0. Good to see Ziyech playing he can be a real difference maker.

[deej]

GREAT WIN❤️????

TandT has turned the season around????

If  you can keep a team such as Man City scoreless,TandT managerial nous, is bordering on being a genious????

[stament]

12 minutes ago, deej said:

GREAT WIN❤️????

TandT has turned the season around????

If  you can keep a team such as Man City scoreless,TandT managerial nous, is bordering on being a genious????

 

Good win, but a lot of important games to go....  fast and furious we can't take our eye of the needle.  Liverpool have an easier run in than us.  Crucial games with Brighton and West Ham next

[mrbojangles]

Well done Chelsea. You deserved the win.

[stament]

2 minutes ago, mrbojangles said:

Well done Chelsea. You deserved the win.

 

I will be cheering on City next week in the LC final

[Blue Muton]

5 hours ago, stament said:

 

Good win, but a lot of important games to go....  fast and furious we can't take our eye of the needle.  Liverpool have an easier run in than us.  Crucial games with Brighton and West Ham next

 

5 hours ago, deej said:

GREAT WIN❤️????

TandT has turned the season around????

If  you can keep a team such as Man City scoreless,TandT managerial nous, is bordering on being a genious????

 

....and the Barcodes turning over Wet Spam was an unexpected bonus.

[keithsimmonds]

13 hours ago, jellydog said:

Could be 2-0 Chelsea by now with Alonso on instead of Chilly.:)

Yeah your maybe right, Alonso could have buried that chance,plus in all honesty Chilwell had little to do down your right hand side for the majority of the game.

Good game management by Tommy T yet again and timely substitutions. We are probably (no drama queens or high maintenance players) a better fit for TT than his last club??

[deej]

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

 

 

....and the Barcodes turning over Wet Spam was an unexpected 

 

[oldgit]

1 hour ago, keithsimmonds said:

Yeah your maybe right, Alonso could have buried that chance,plus in all honesty Chilwell had little to do down your right hand side for the majority of the game.

Good game management by Tommy T yet again and timely substitutions. We are probably (no drama queens or high maintenance players) a better fit for TT than his last club??

It looks like the squad are all in tune with what he wants them to do. He's not afraid to mix it up with different personnel as befits the particular problem the opposition poses. which I think goes down well with the squad as they all feel involved. Of course, there will be some disappointed players. A special mention for Azpilicueta, who has come roaring back to form after some, me included, were writing him off as having seen better days. Absolute master stroke bringing in Thiago Silva. What a player and what a difference to Christenson now due to his influence I'm sure.

[keithsimmonds]

1 hour ago, oldgit said:

It looks like the squad are all in tune with what he wants them to do. He's not afraid to mix it up with different personnel as befits the particular problem the opposition poses. which I think goes down well with the squad as they all feel involved. Of course, there will be some disappointed players. A special mention for Azpilicueta, who has come roaring back to form after some, me included, were writing him off as having seen better days. Absolute master stroke bringing in Thiago Silva. What a player and what a difference to Christenson now due to his influence I'm sure.

That is the key...keeping everyone happy and involved. There is little doubt that this is the best league to Manage/coach in, and in these Covid times with games coming thick and fast for those teams involved in cups and champions league places.....not easy...so yeah full credit to Tommy T and his staff for getting us where we are.

[Bredbury Blue]

12 hours ago, stament said:

There mere fact that they didn't prove it is hardly enough to say City didn't act with integrity. Look at the emails, a senior director suggesting backdating official documents, etc.  Yes FIFA couldn't probs beyond reasonable doubt but by the time City had time to cook the books and align their stories no doubt. The fact is there was willingness to cheat as shown in the emails. That to me isn't sporting. And everyone knows the deals are inflated and not at arm's length, same at PSG.

 

But well done you did the crime but not the time

 

You seem NOT to have read the conclusion of CAS Award summarised in my post above, so please read it this time:

 

1. With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence.

 

REGARDING THE EMAILS (extracts from the CAS Award document below)

A. The authenticity of the Leaked Emails

84. By comparing the Leaked Emails with the original documents, it transpired that the Leaked Emails were mainly selected parts of emails, from which certain information had been deleted, such as additional text, the names of the persons added in carbon copy and the dates. [i.e. Leaked Emails were therefore shown NOT to show the full facts – doctored emails!]

87. To avoid any doubt in respect of the authenticity of the Leaked Emails, the Panel does not rely on the Leaked Emails, but on the original versions thereof provided by MCFC on 18 May 2020. For ease of reference, the Panel however continues to refer to the Leaked Emails. [i.e. the CAS Panel didn’t use the doctored Der Spiegel emails but the original undoctored emails]

88. MCFC maintains that the Leaked Emails were only 6 emails and one attachment out of a total of 5,500,000 documents that were illegally hacked from MCFC. This information was not disputed by UEFA… [i.e. UEFA’s case was solely built around 6 emails!]

209. The Panel notes that UEFA's case is primarily premised on the Leaked Emails.

a. The content of the Leaked Emails

210. The content of the original documents is reproduced here in full (without email signatures) [i.e. all 6 emails are shown in full and YOU can read them]

215. The majority of the Panel does not agree with the Adjudicatory Chamber's statement that in the absence of any evidence produced by the Club, the Leaked Emails are direct evidence that the arrangements were made and implemented. MCFC is not charged for attempting to disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions, it is charged for erroneous reporting of financial information, which requires a completed act. Accordingly, it is for UEFA to prove that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were as they appear to be and were indeed executed.

216. The majority of the Panel finds that the Leaked Emails by themselves are not sufficient evidence to support a finding that MCFC provided incorrect information to UEFA by disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions. The arrangements discussed must be rooted in contemporaneous accounting or transactional evidence, for otherwise it cannot be ascertained that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were in fact executed…

 

REGARDING A SENIOR DIRECTOR 

2. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").

3. UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.

 

CITY HAD TIME TO COOK THE BOOKS

4. On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accounting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).

 

 

Sorry, mate, I know you are one of the many upset that UEFA didn’t win its case but they basically accused City without any evidence. They had access to 5.5M hacked documents, they chose the best 6 emails (as they thought) and went in to a court proceedings armed with hacked emails they couldn’t be sure if they were authentic or doctored, and they had nothing else to support their case including direct accounting evidence or compelling testimony; all a bit foolish really.

 

Why did UEFA do that? My guess is that they were pressured by all of the media and people like you who were wishing, preying and believing that the hacked emails would bring City down.

 

 

I’ll leave you with this thought. Imagine you send some jokey racist jokes by email at work, and one of your co-workers takes offense and makes a complaint about you to HR that you are racist. There’s a disciplinary meeting and your co-worker cannot provide evidence to prove you are a racist so you win. Are you innocent? Should you have to prove that you are a not a racist? Who will your fellow co-workers believe, the co-worker who took offense or you? As I said, whether you are guilty of being a racist or not, <deleted> sticks or it drops away and leaves a stain, either way you would have to live with that. Fair or not? That’s City’s fate – throw enough <deleted> at someone and you taint that person/club! That was UEFA's success and the media at large.

 

 

Enjoy your victory at Wembley.

 

 

 

[stament]

4 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

You seem NOT to have read the conclusion of CAS Award summarised in my post above, so please read it this time:

 

1. With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence.

 

REGARDING THE EMAILS (extracts from the CAS Award document below)

A. The authenticity of the Leaked Emails

84. By comparing the Leaked Emails with the original documents, it transpired that the Leaked Emails were mainly selected parts of emails, from which certain information had been deleted, such as additional text, the names of the persons added in carbon copy and the dates. [i.e. Leaked Emails were therefore shown NOT to show the full facts – doctored emails!]

87. To avoid any doubt in respect of the authenticity of the Leaked Emails, the Panel does not rely on the Leaked Emails, but on the original versions thereof provided by MCFC on 18 May 2020. For ease of reference, the Panel however continues to refer to the Leaked Emails. [i.e. the CAS Panel didn’t use the doctored Der Spiegel emails but the original undoctored emails]

88. MCFC maintains that the Leaked Emails were only 6 emails and one attachment out of a total of 5,500,000 documents that were illegally hacked from MCFC. This information was not disputed by UEFA… [i.e. UEFA’s case was solely built around 6 emails!]

209. The Panel notes that UEFA's case is primarily premised on the Leaked Emails.

a. The content of the Leaked Emails

210. The content of the original documents is reproduced here in full (without email signatures) [i.e. all 6 emails are shown in full and YOU can read them]

215. The majority of the Panel does not agree with the Adjudicatory Chamber's statement that in the absence of any evidence produced by the Club, the Leaked Emails are direct evidence that the arrangements were made and implemented. MCFC is not charged for attempting to disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions, it is charged for erroneous reporting of financial information, which requires a completed act. Accordingly, it is for UEFA to prove that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were as they appear to be and were indeed executed.

216. The majority of the Panel finds that the Leaked Emails by themselves are not sufficient evidence to support a finding that MCFC provided incorrect information to UEFA by disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions. The arrangements discussed must be rooted in contemporaneous accounting or transactional evidence, for otherwise it cannot be ascertained that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were in fact executed…

 

REGARDING A SENIOR DIRECTOR 

2. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").

3. UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.

 

CITY HAD TIME TO COOK THE BOOKS

4. On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accounting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).

 

 

Sorry, mate, I know you are one of the many upset that UEFA didn’t win its case but they basically accused City without any evidence. They had access to 5.5M hacked documents, they chose the best 6 emails (as they thought) and went in to a court proceedings armed with hacked emails they couldn’t be sure if they were authentic or doctored, and they had nothing else to support their case including direct accounting evidence or compelling testimony; all a bit foolish really.

 

Why did UEFA do that? My guess is that they were pressured by all of the media and people like you who were wishing, preying and believing that the hacked emails would bring City down.

 

 

I’ll leave you with this thought. Imagine you send some jokey racist jokes by email at work, and one of your co-workers takes offense and makes a complaint about you to HR that you are racist. There’s a disciplinary meeting and your co-worker cannot provide evidence to prove you are a racist so you win. Are you innocent? Should you have to prove that you are a not a racist? Who will your fellow co-workers believe, the co-worker who took offense or you? As I said, whether you are guilty of being a racist or not, <deleted> sticks or it drops away and leaves a stain, either way you would have to live with that. Fair or not? That’s City’s fate – throw enough <deleted> at someone and you taint that person/club! That was UEFA's success and the media at large.

 

 

Enjoy your victory at Wembley.

 

 

 

I did read it and read the leaked emails, which didn't reflect very well j  your senior leaders in terms of fair play. I strongly suggest you read those again and also ponder that Infantino negotiated a lower settlement for you. If that isn't liking City, what is?

 

Be very careful with emails, BB is watching is what I would say. Everything is hackable it seems. 

 

No time to enjoy, we've won nothing yet....

 

I wish you every success at Wembley next week. 

[stament]

3 hours ago, Blue Muton said:

 

 

....and the Barcodes turning over Wet Spam was an unexpected bonus.

Indeed, I thought at 2-2 the Hammers would win it. They certainly dealt with 10 men better than we did ????

[Bredbury Blue]

17 minutes ago, stament said:

I did read it and read the leaked emails, which didn't reflect very well j  your senior leaders in terms of fair play. I strongly suggest you read those again and also ponder that Infantino negotiated a lower settlement for you. If that isn't liking City, what is?

 

Be very careful with emails, BB is watching is what I would say. Everything is hackable it seems. 

 

No time to enjoy, we've won nothing yet....

 

I wish you every success at Wembley next week. 

 

With regards what senior leaders say, i don't find that unusual in an internal work environment - the amazing thing for me is that City's emails are not encrypted (as is standard practice where i work).

 

I did read the CAS Award, etc, again in order to refresh my mind so i could respond to you. I disagree that Infantino negotiated a lower settlement for City. He visited the Etihad late 2019 or early 2020 and the feeling within City spheres was that UEFA didn't have a decent case to press forward with so he was trying to see what he could get City to settle for. As we had once made a Settlement Agreement with UEFA (when City did not agree that we were guilty of wrong doing but accepted a slap on the legs to make it all go away), a second time around we were not going to fall for that <deleted> again and it was either: UEFA bring your case or UEFA drop it. UEFA chose to bring their case the day before the Settlement agreement expired if i remember correctly, and went in hard with the 2 season ban/fine. City had no choice but to take them to CAS. We won. End of. ????   

 

You calling me BB. Interesting. I get the feeling that you are a TV Footie poster wearing a different head ????

 

[deej]

3 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

You seem NOT to have read the conclusion of CAS Award summarised in my post above, so please read it this time:

 

1. With regards to Man City disguising funding as sponsorship money, CAS found that UEFA's decision to sanction Man City was NOT correct, since their entire case is built almost entirely on just those leaked emails, without sufficient accounting or transactional evidence.

 

REGARDING THE EMAILS (extracts from the CAS Award document below)

A. The authenticity of the Leaked Emails

84. By comparing the Leaked Emails with the original documents, it transpired that the Leaked Emails were mainly selected parts of emails, from which certain information had been deleted, such as additional text, the names of the persons added in carbon copy and the dates. [i.e. Leaked Emails were therefore shown NOT to show the full facts – doctored emails!]

87. To avoid any doubt in respect of the authenticity of the Leaked Emails, the Panel does not rely on the Leaked Emails, but on the original versions thereof provided by MCFC on 18 May 2020. For ease of reference, the Panel however continues to refer to the Leaked Emails. [i.e. the CAS Panel didn’t use the doctored Der Spiegel emails but the original undoctored emails]

88. MCFC maintains that the Leaked Emails were only 6 emails and one attachment out of a total of 5,500,000 documents that were illegally hacked from MCFC. This information was not disputed by UEFA… [i.e. UEFA’s case was solely built around 6 emails!]

209. The Panel notes that UEFA's case is primarily premised on the Leaked Emails.

a. The content of the Leaked Emails

210. The content of the original documents is reproduced here in full (without email signatures) [i.e. all 6 emails are shown in full and YOU can read them]

215. The majority of the Panel does not agree with the Adjudicatory Chamber's statement that in the absence of any evidence produced by the Club, the Leaked Emails are direct evidence that the arrangements were made and implemented. MCFC is not charged for attempting to disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions, it is charged for erroneous reporting of financial information, which requires a completed act. Accordingly, it is for UEFA to prove that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were as they appear to be and were indeed executed.

216. The majority of the Panel finds that the Leaked Emails by themselves are not sufficient evidence to support a finding that MCFC provided incorrect information to UEFA by disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions. The arrangements discussed must be rooted in contemporaneous accounting or transactional evidence, for otherwise it cannot be ascertained that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were in fact executed…

 

REGARDING A SENIOR DIRECTOR 

2. The nature of the allegations would necessitate communication with 3rd parties, yet no evidence of those was presented. UEFA argued that Mr. Pierce (director of Man City, among others) made arrangements for these crimes, but Mr. Pierce's testimony was considered compelling ("no reason to believe that his testimony was inaccurate").

3. UEFA basically produced clearly insufficient evidence for most of its claims. Originally, its entire case was based on just those emails, but then they attempted to introduce the documents they received from Man City (after they made an amicable agreement on which ones can legally be subpoenaed) into their argument. However, it remained LACKING. The burden of proof is on UEFA (a fact that was agreed-upon by both parties), but they simply failed to meet it.

 

CITY HAD TIME TO COOK THE BOOKS

4. On the other hand, Man City did provide direct accounting evidence, as well as compelling testimony that explained the role that key individuals play in the organization (as well as the 3rd party status of companies such as Etihad).

 

 

Sorry, mate, I know you are one of the many upset that UEFA didn’t win its case but they basically accused City without any evidence. They had access to 5.5M hacked documents, they chose the best 6 emails (as they thought) and went in to a court proceedings armed with hacked emails they couldn’t be sure if they were authentic or doctored, and they had nothing else to support their case including direct accounting evidence or compelling testimony; all a bit foolish really.

 

Why did UEFA do that? My guess is that they were pressured by all of the media and people like you who were wishing, preying and believing that the hacked emails would bring City down.

 

 

I’ll leave you with this thought. Imagine you send some jokey racist jokes by email at work, and one of your co-workers takes offense and makes a complaint about you to HR that you are racist. There’s a disciplinary meeting and your co-worker cannot provide evidence to prove you are a racist so you win. Are you innocent? Should you have to prove that you are a not a racist? Who will your fellow co-workers believe, the co-worker who took offense or you? As I said, whether you are guilty of being a racist or not, <deleted> sticks or it drops away and leaves a stain, either way you would have to live with that. Fair or not? That’s City’s fate – throw enough <deleted> at someone and you taint that person/club! That was UEFA's success and the media at large.

 

 

Enjoy your victory at Wembley.

 

 

 

B.B  who cares,why be a boring old ????

[stament]

5 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

 

With regards what senior leaders say, i don't find that unusual in an internal work environment - the amazing thing for me is that City's emails are not encrypted (as is standard practice where i work).

 

I did read the CAS Award, etc, again in order to refresh my mind so i could respond to you. I disagree that Infantino negotiated a lower settlement for City. He visited the Etihad late 2019 or early 2020 and the feeling within City spheres was that UEFA didn't have a decent case to press forward with so he was trying to see what he could get City to settle for. As we had once made a Settlement Agreement with UEFA (when City did not agree that we were guilty of wrong doing but accepted a slap on the legs to make it all go away), a second time around we were not going to fall for that <deleted> again and it was either: UEFA bring your case or UEFA drop it. UEFA chose to bring their case the day before the Settlement agreement expired if i remember correctly, and went in hard with the 2 season ban/fine. City had no choice but to take them to CAS. We won. End of. ????   

 

You calling me BB. Interesting. I get the feeling that you are a TV Footie poster wearing a different head ????

 

BB? Your initials?