Read on Twitter
Loads of interesting detail in the CAS full MCFC-UEFA judgement ( https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf)
As long ago as 2012-13 it seems Man City had the most lucrative principle sponsorship deal IN WORLD FOOTBALL (with Etihad); £220m over three years 12-13, 13-14, 15-16.
As long ago as 2012-13 it seems Man City had the most lucrative principle sponsorship deal IN WORLD FOOTBALL (with Etihad); £220m over three years 12-13, 13-14, 15-16.
So Etihad had an original 10-year, £350m deal with City, valid through to 2021. But choose to negotiate it upwards FOUR times between 2013 and 2016. That is an interesting strategy; they must have felt rivals were waiting to pounce and outbid them.
Plenty is deservedly written about Man City's world-class product on the pitch. But what an astonishing job their commercial team did, especially from 2010 to 2016, to secure some of the most lucrative sponsorship deals in global sport. Incredible stuff.
Only on page 49 of 93 of a first close reading of the CAS decision. And to all those asking: no mentions yet of the losing under-bidders for these City sponsorship deals. I'm sure it's in there somewhere. If not I'll check City's website.
Time-barred. There's a lot of time-barred. Over alleged disguised equity funding for Etisalat and bits of Etihad.
But the emails: authentic and admissible.
Which pretty much make a mockery of 'organised and clear.' (See tweets passim).
But the emails: authentic and admissible.
Which pretty much make a mockery of 'organised and clear.' (See tweets passim).
Points 214 to 236 of ruling are interesting (and key) from legal perspective. Just because City execs said (in authentic admissible emails) 10-9-8 yrs ago that "this" was the plan, if they told CAS in 2020 "no, that didn't happen", then the latter holds sway.
"Not sufficient evidence" is cropping up a lot too. Not "no evidence", or "evidence that disproves".
UEFA's handling of this requires some serious forensic analysis, ie what they did and didn't do at CAS and why. For that analysis see @TariqPanja timeline.
UEFA's handling of this requires some serious forensic analysis, ie what they did and didn't do at CAS and why. For that analysis see @TariqPanja timeline.
On page 74 now and "the majority of the Panel" is really building a head of steam. A majority in a Panel of, erm, 3.
No spoilers please. But I have a *sneaky* feeling that this might end with the most amazing 2-1 win in City's history.
No spoilers please. But I have a *sneaky* feeling that this might end with the most amazing 2-1 win in City's history.
Crikey: by the time you reach point 293 of the judgement, the word 'equivocal' is much more applicable than 'unequivocal' in verdict terms.
Was expecting some sort of genuine exoneration for MCFC in this. But no.
Was expecting some sort of genuine exoneration for MCFC in this. But no.
CAS ruling finds a YEAR of, erm, "obstruction" by City to the UEFA inquiry into City's alleged wrong-doing (time-barred or otherwise). Clearly City had nothing to hide?
CAS finds City contravened FFP rules (article 56 this time) for a second time, after 2014 guilty verdict.
Oscar Wilde: "To lose one may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness."
Oscar Wilde: "To lose one may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness."
This is arguably the most damning new part (today, that we didn't know before).
To paraphrase CAS: City were caught cheating in 2014, so to obfuscate and block a second entirely legitimate inquiry after your serious misconduct previously, I mean WTF?"
To paraphrase CAS: City were caught cheating in 2014, so to obfuscate and block a second entirely legitimate inquiry after your serious misconduct previously, I mean WTF?"
Conclusion: time-barred charges, insufficient evidence due to non-cooperation, obstruction of legitimate inquiry, Qs over how seriously UEFA litigated it, and City get fined NINE MILLION QUID.
Sorry it's taken so long. The process. And me reading the doc.
Sorry it's taken so long. The process. And me reading the doc.
Having digested CAS's reasoning on MCFC v UEFA, what's your considered view?
