#sportslaw the full reasoned award in the Man City case has now been released by CAS - 10 key takeaways below but, as ever follow @Lawinsport for expert commentary by people who, unlike me, know what they are talking about: CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

1. On procedure, no due process breaches by UEFA (e.g., no bias against City) and leaked emails did constitute admissible evidence; in any event any alleged breaches could be cured by de novo effect of CAS (1-0, UEFA)

2. 2014 Settlement Agreement between the parties did not bar UEFA from charging City on the issues at stake here (2-0, UEFA)

3. Time issue; CAS says BOTH parties were wrong on statute of limitations; relevant clause in UEFA regs is ambiguous. Most importantly, key charges against City, disguised equity funding via Ethiad etc, in the main, NOT time barred and CAS considered them (3-1, UEFA)

4. On key charge against City - equity funding disguised via Ethiad sponsorship - CAS panel (by majority) say that charge is not made out (4-3, City, hatrick, Silva)

5. On secondary charge, CAS Panel engages in intense bout of jowl shaking as to how seriously it took City's failure to cooperate with UEFA's but rhetoric can't disguise the fact that the fine imposed is a slap on the wrist for a club such as City (FT Score, 5-4, City).

6. On reflection, the time-barred/statute of limitations issue was not as critical as the press release might have suggested and in any event the key charge could and was substantively addressed, and in City's favour

7. Little comfort to UEFA but on first reading CAS's analysis on statute of limitations appears legally weak - little to no reference to previous CAS cases, Swiss law or comparative limitation law; and at one stage they give the "Oxford dictionary" definition of a "prosecution"

8. May be some within UEFA who wonder why such a broad, de novo jurisdiction was ever given to CAS - in effect powerful football clubs are given two shots at FFP compliance. Unlikely to happen but might "football family" consider limiting a CAS appeal to procedural matters only?

9. On the key charge - equity funding via Ethiad etc - it's a resounding victory for City. While limitation clauses etc can be redrafted/clarified; substantively this will be the most difficult aspect for UEFA to reflect upon

10. FFP is not dead as a result of this but UEFA need to invest in its compliance capacity - wonder will all those clubs who have since complained about the decision, agree, for eg, to an integrity levy which could be used by UEFA to underwrite an enhanced FFP/integrity unit?