Read on Twitter
The Court of Arbitration of Sport released their report on the case between @UEFAcom and @ManCity.
Buckle up: you’re about to see to what extent City were “exonerated” of the charges brought against them:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf
Buckle up: you’re about to see to what extent City were “exonerated” of the charges brought against them:
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf
(Pg 38)
While City’s position was to not acknowledge the authenticity of the Leaked E-mails, the (mostly) unredacted versions they submitted did not affect the veracity of UEFA’s evidence. City’s witnesses explicitly or implicitly acknowledged the veracity of the Leaked Emails.
While City’s position was to not acknowledge the authenticity of the Leaked E-mails, the (mostly) unredacted versions they submitted did not affect the veracity of UEFA’s evidence. City’s witnesses explicitly or implicitly acknowledged the veracity of the Leaked Emails.
(Pgs 38-41)
Swiss Law, UEFA regulations, and legal precedent all allowed for the use of leaked documents as evidence so long as there was “an overriding interest in finding the truth.”
Nonetheless, UEFA only submitted SIX of the Leaked Emails. Remember this.
Swiss Law, UEFA regulations, and legal precedent all allowed for the use of leaked documents as evidence so long as there was “an overriding interest in finding the truth.”
Nonetheless, UEFA only submitted SIX of the Leaked Emails. Remember this.
(Pgs 44-46)
CAS dismissed City’s argument that UEFA’s case was “commercially irrational,” by spelling out the very obvious arguments that City, their media outlets, and fans have ignored for years: that City being or not being a related party with Etihad, etc., had no bearing ...
CAS dismissed City’s argument that UEFA’s case was “commercially irrational,” by spelling out the very obvious arguments that City, their media outlets, and fans have ignored for years: that City being or not being a related party with Etihad, etc., had no bearing ...
on the profit they would derive from disguising equity funding as sponsorship.
(Pgs 46-48)
CAS found that the UEFA Club Financial Control Body did not breach its obligations of due process. The leaks City claimed prejudiced proceedings against them reflected a decision that ...
(Pgs 46-48)
CAS found that the UEFA Club Financial Control Body did not breach its obligations of due process. The leaks City claimed prejudiced proceedings against them reflected a decision that ...
... had already been made.
(Pgs 48-51)
CAS dismissed City’s argument that the 2014 Settlement Agreement precluded them from being charged against by—again—spelling out the very obvious: that the charges City were facing in 2020 (disguised equity funding) were not what they ...
(Pgs 48-51)
CAS dismissed City’s argument that the 2014 Settlement Agreement precluded them from being charged against by—again—spelling out the very obvious: that the charges City were facing in 2020 (disguised equity funding) were not what they ...
... were charged with in 2014.
(Pg 50)
UEFA only charged City with Articles 13 (“general responsibilities of the license applicant”), 58 (”notion or relevant income and expenses”) and 62 (“break-even information”). None of the other Football Leaks allegations were included.
(Pg 50)
UEFA only charged City with Articles 13 (“general responsibilities of the license applicant”), 58 (”notion or relevant income and expenses”) and 62 (“break-even information”). None of the other Football Leaks allegations were included.
(Pgs 51-52)
UEFA knew that, even going by their legal argument, any alleged breaches prior to 7 March 2014 would be time-barred. As I’ve offered over the past few months, this was a giant PR exercise. UEFA moved on City because the Football Leaks revelations forced their hand.
UEFA knew that, even going by their legal argument, any alleged breaches prior to 7 March 2014 would be time-barred. As I’ve offered over the past few months, this was a giant PR exercise. UEFA moved on City because the Football Leaks revelations forced their hand.
(Pg 53)
At best, UEFA could prosecute City for violations that occurred for the year ended May 2014 and 2015. Even that information, however, had to stand independent of any informations that pertained to 2013-14’s 3-year monitoring period but fell under 2012-13.
At best, UEFA could prosecute City for violations that occurred for the year ended May 2014 and 2015. Even that information, however, had to stand independent of any informations that pertained to 2013-14’s 3-year monitoring period but fell under 2012-13.
(Pg 54)
UEFA submitted correspondence related to Etisalat relevant to 2011-12 and 2012-13. In effect, UEFA were “trying” to catch City for 2014 by presenting time-barred evidence because it fell under the same monitoring period as 2014.
They literally weren’t even trying.
UEFA submitted correspondence related to Etisalat relevant to 2011-12 and 2012-13. In effect, UEFA were “trying” to catch City for 2014 by presenting time-barred evidence because it fell under the same monitoring period as 2014.
They literally weren’t even trying.
(Pg 57)
CAS set the standard of proof as “comfortable satisfaction.” They determined City could have spend £200m more than they should have been able to by disguising equity; they emphasized keeping in mind the “evasive means” involved in corruption.
Remember that one, folks.
CAS set the standard of proof as “comfortable satisfaction.” They determined City could have spend £200m more than they should have been able to by disguising equity; they emphasized keeping in mind the “evasive means” involved in corruption.
Remember that one, folks.
(Pgs 64-65)
Contrary to City’s public histrionics, they had acknowledged UEFA had a proper basis for commencing an investigation.
CAS acknowledged UEFA had no choice but to launch an investigation; the Leaked Emails are prima facie evidence of potential rule breaches. They ...
Contrary to City’s public histrionics, they had acknowledged UEFA had a proper basis for commencing an investigation.
CAS acknowledged UEFA had no choice but to launch an investigation; the Leaked Emails are prima facie evidence of potential rule breaches. They ...
... described the Leaked Emails as describing executive and board officers discussing how to disguise equity funding as sponsorship.
(Pgs 65-67)
CAS nonetheless ruled that UEFA weren’t charging City with disguising equity, but with erroneous reporting of financial information; UEFA had to prove these moves were implemented. Simon Pearce, Andrew Widdowson, and Jorge Chumillas sending official communications ...
CAS nonetheless ruled that UEFA weren’t charging City with disguising equity, but with erroneous reporting of financial information; UEFA had to prove these moves were implemented. Simon Pearce, Andrew Widdowson, and Jorge Chumillas sending official communications ...
... literally directing the transfer of disguised equity did not suffice for “comfortable satisfaction.”
Let me spell this out again. The CAS panel literally said that, in cases of corruption, evasive means will be taken to disguise wrong-doing. UEFA delivered e-mails where ...
Let me spell this out again. The CAS panel literally said that, in cases of corruption, evasive means will be taken to disguise wrong-doing. UEFA delivered e-mails where ...
... one City officer tells another to carry out an action, or to inform the sponsors to carry out an action, but that doesn’t suffice. They wanted a smoking gun: an email between a City officer or Mansour and an Etihad official.
Poor City. Everyone’s against them.
Poor City. Everyone’s against them.
(Pg 66)
Pearce literally testified that it was “another His Highness” that was going to supplement Aabar’s sponsorship for them — not Mansour.
CAS took Simon Pearce’s word for it. Because he’s a reliable witness. In either case, CAS found that Leaked E-mail #1 didn’t form a ...
Pearce literally testified that it was “another His Highness” that was going to supplement Aabar’s sponsorship for them — not Mansour.
CAS took Simon Pearce’s word for it. Because he’s a reliable witness. In either case, CAS found that Leaked E-mail #1 didn’t form a ...
... pattern with other Leaked Emails that describe the same activities, because it predated the others by 2-3 years.
In other words, City officers telling each other to certain things in 2010 and then doing the same in 2012 or 2013 does not make for “comfortable satisfaction.”
In other words, City officers telling each other to certain things in 2010 and then doing the same in 2012 or 2013 does not make for “comfortable satisfaction.”
(Pg 67)
CAS made the argument that it doesn’t find it credible that the alleged funding going through Etihad would have gone unnoticed because the government of Abu-Dhabi — which is ruled by Mansour’s family — would have exercised oversight over their flag carrier.
Seriously.
CAS made the argument that it doesn’t find it credible that the alleged funding going through Etihad would have gone unnoticed because the government of Abu-Dhabi — which is ruled by Mansour’s family — would have exercised oversight over their flag carrier.
Seriously.
(Pgs 67-68)
Hogan and Pearce argued that both the payments mentioned in Leaked Emails #6 came from Etihad, but from different budgets. The e-mail contradicts them by LITERALLY STATING that ADUG will pay £59.5m of the £67.5m. CAS Agreed with Hogan and Pearce.
Hogan and Pearce argued that both the payments mentioned in Leaked Emails #6 came from Etihad, but from different budgets. The e-mail contradicts them by LITERALLY STATING that ADUG will pay £59.5m of the £67.5m. CAS Agreed with Hogan and Pearce.
(Pg 73)
The fact that Mansour holding offices such as Deputy Prime Minister, etc., of the UAE did not mean he had “the ability to exercise any control over, or to direct, the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi ...” — a nation that his family RULES — “... in respect of ...
The fact that Mansour holding offices such as Deputy Prime Minister, etc., of the UAE did not mean he had “the ability to exercise any control over, or to direct, the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi ...” — a nation that his family RULES — “... in respect of ...
... “commercial matters or any commercial entires that are owned by that government.”
They said this wiith a straight face. This is a government that makes people DISAPPEAR, but their OWN STATE CARRIER is somehow beyond their influence.
They said this wiith a straight face. This is a government that makes people DISAPPEAR, but their OWN STATE CARRIER is somehow beyond their influence.
(Pgs 73-74)
The accounting Expert Report that City produced to show ADUG didn’t give money to Etihad was not an independent audit. Instead, it was based on the material City and ADUG provided to the firm. CAS acknowledged that the accounting data provided would not, in case, ...
The accounting Expert Report that City produced to show ADUG didn’t give money to Etihad was not an independent audit. Instead, it was based on the material City and ADUG provided to the firm. CAS acknowledged that the accounting data provided would not, in case, ...
... logically have contained disguised equity funding. Not that it matters at this point.
(Pgs 76-77)
Here’s where you see just how little UEFA was interested in fighting City:
CAS noted that UEFA requested that City produce the runs of emails associated with the Leaked Emails.
(Pgs 76-77)
Here’s where you see just how little UEFA was interested in fighting City:
CAS noted that UEFA requested that City produce the runs of emails associated with the Leaked Emails.
City didn’t produce them; UEFA stopped trying. CAS noted UEFA could have sought an immediate decision for the documents to be produced after City’s failed appeal. They didn’t. Instead, they pressed on with the 6 Leaked Emails and even went ON RECORD as being satisfied with this.
(pg 86)
In its conclusion, CAS found that City could not be sanctioned for not providing the runs of emails — you know, the ones where someone presumably responds to Pearce’s request for equity to be disguised.
In its conclusion, CAS found that City could not be sanctioned for not providing the runs of emails — you know, the ones where someone presumably responds to Pearce’s request for equity to be disguised.
(Pgs 78-79)
Based on all the above, CAS was “not comfortably satisfied that MCFC disguised equity.” They found City obstructed the investigation. They noted that City didn’t provide the runs of emails that would have provided clarity to the Leaked Emails, which CAS somehow ...
Based on all the above, CAS was “not comfortably satisfied that MCFC disguised equity.” They found City obstructed the investigation. They noted that City didn’t provide the runs of emails that would have provided clarity to the Leaked Emails, which CAS somehow ...
... thought didn’t mean what they outright stated. But because UEFA stopped requesting them, there was no way for the allegations to be proven to a satisfactorily level.
This is what “exoneration” looks like for @ManCity.
Now, Cityzens, can you please stop gaslighting us?
This is what “exoneration” looks like for @ManCity.
Now, Cityzens, can you please stop gaslighting us?
