- This topic has 302 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not really Chucky I was just putting up CAS’s alleged expressed position on the e mails that seemingly came out at the previous CAS hearing recently bought by City.
“The merits of a dispute brought under the ordinary arbitration procedure are determined according to the governing law agreed by the parties, or according to Swiss law as default.”
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Hmm… so, we have an English football team, with Emirati owners, arguing over German publications of hacked e-mails in a Swiss Court (as neither side will agree to hold it anywhere else!)…
Don’t suppose any of you lot are experts on Swiss privacy laws? And do they differ from EU Laws?? And what about Brexit???
Anyway, having read the mails, I can see why UEFA think this is a pretty frigging obvious disregard of the FFP rules… and whatever happens, they can’t make me un-see them!!
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Just one thing I dont get it,who is so blatantly stupid to send e-mails containing important material like that????
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
How else they going to send it? Fax? Actual mail?? π
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
No Chucky CAS’s rules state βThe merits of a dispute brought under the ordinary arbitration procedure are determined according to the governing law agreed by the parties, or according to Swiss law as default.β
So seemingly both parties could agree for UK law to prevail for instance seemingly if they can’t agree it reverts to Swiss law as a default position
I guess the pertinent point though from the BBC report was that CAS has allegedly already expressed the leaks as “worrisome”.
I agree based on purely the e mails City have more than an uphill task in proving their innocence.
Etihad Airways allegedly according to the e mails only paying Β£8m for the City sponsorship seems very odd though if you compare it to the normal value of Shirt sponsorship at other top Clubs and Β£8m looks extremely undervalued compared to the value of other top Clubs Shirt sponsorships.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
That’s what I said puppy, 100% think both parties won’t agree on non-Swiss law.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Kylie-Not send it at all,arrange a meeting & talk it through so to speak,without being in danger of being caught,you silly kangaroo.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Need a bloody big table for that ship full of scallywags to sit around… π
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
“Still all speculation threeps but you carry on if thatβs what you want to do. Iβve made my position clear I think City are probably guilty and in line for a ban but Iβm not going to rush to judgement on them until CAS has heard all the evidence from both sides and made their judgement.”
Nine, we know we’re not some grand jury. We are all aware that if we pass judgment here today that you won’t hear the jingle jangle of chained hands coming out the offices of City’s HQs. I don’t see the need for you to constantly remind us of this. I mean you must have said this or there abouts 10 or 20 times so far in this thread. You want to wait until they’ve had their appeal and that’s fine, that’s you. I see things a little differently, they’ve already been found guilty and like PSG and some other similar situations, City seemingly have the chance to get off on a technicality with a CAS appeal but UEFA have taken things a step further this time with City because they really want one such situation to land. They are not the greatest institution to ever exist and that’s putting it mildly but they are pretty clearly fed up with the juicers.
We don’t have the final say ourselves and we don’t know what the final say will be, this is well established. What we do have though is a guilty verdict from UEFA and a serious ban that City RIGHTLY have the right to appeal. Even I’m not doubting that. It seems that City’s most likely avenue of escape is based around technicalities rather than innocence (we’ll possibly see for sure in 3-6 months). The emails are actual evidence of their guilt and show discussions on the subject of their charges. This is rock hard evidence of their guilt and we have it for ourselves, that part is not speculation. It’s a little window into some of the actual subject matter.
You were all telling us about how the title was over so long ago, when you didn’t know for sure. Why is that different here? You can’t get high and mighty over speculation now, when you were doing the exact same yourself previously. I’d draw similarities between the 2 situations in that it does look like City are guilty. We don’t know for sure but given that they are going to try and get off largely based upon technicalities of how they were caught rather than them not being caught in the first place… well I’m totally ok with my speculation and I don’t even consider it to be too wild. I think the odds of them being guilty are far more secure than say the odds of Liverpool winning the title were in December.
We all have different ideas on this sure but I don’t see the usefulness in being this force who’s constantly pumping the breaks, when so often these days, there isn’t really a whole lot else to talk about.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Adlab,
“UEFA relied on out of context stolen emails”
Nope, the emails are definitely in context. They were however stolen, so is this your own personal stance on it? Because what that says is “we cheated but somebody else cheated in catching us, so it shouldn’t count”.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Mav , to answer your question, I’d say hubris/ignorance. The City officials were too comfortable and never thought that they would have such a security issue, whether hack or leak. People in power can get a little comfortable with things going their way and they make mistakes.
If the CAS are already speaking about these emails in such a manner as “worrisome” then City are going to have to come up with something big. I mean, other sides have gotten off on technicalities, so even very strong implied guilt could all fall apart on something incredibly simple.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
For the sake of clarity.
“Manchester City failed in an initial bid to have the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) halt Uefa’s investigation into a possible breach of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules. in dismissing City’s claim, Cas did say City’s appeal was “not without merit” and the alleged leaking of information by members of the investigation or the Uefa administration about the proceedings against City was “worrisome”. BBC Sport
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
well that’s very different. however I have since read the emails and were I city, id be worried.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Nice to speculate chaps but none of us know the real truth do we.
If our CEO is correct then City will present evidence from their accounts and Etihad Airways etc.
If not then we will see what happens.
Does this help?
Since the WikiLeaks scandal, the legal parameters for admissible evidence seem poised to change: evidence that would have been considered inadmissible due to its privileged or confidential character is now admissible because it is considered to be public information. Nevertheless, this boundary should be carefully policed, due to the fact that this evidence was unlawfully obtained at some point. Therefore, in a prima facie analysis, the fact of the evidence having been obtained illegally would weigh against admissibility in light of on public policy grounds. Under the reasoning in Caratube, what would happen if one of the parties hacks the other partiesβ emails and then asks a third entity which is not part of the dispute to publish this information in order to gain publicity for the purpose of using it in an arbitration procedure (based on the argument public availability destroys the privileged or confidential status of information)? In light of the foregoing concern, evidence that was unlawfully obtained and becomes public should only be accepted by an international arbitral tribunal on the consent of both parties. This will prevent any party from trying to unlawfully obtain information and will maintain fairness and equality among the parties in the process._____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Source
New York University International Law School.
It is a very complex area. What I have read is that irrefutable evidence is needed and third party evidence – especially from a criminal – (not my words) is much less persuasive)As I said we should wait and see rather than judge without knowledge.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
The Etihad Airways sponsorship is an interesting one Adlab Β£8m for the shirt sponsorship of a major Club just doesnβt hang together imo. Accepting that Etihad Airways is an Abu Dhabi based airline why would City agree to such a low value sponsorship when they could get so much more elsewhere.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Adlab, what you’re aiming for is to get off on a technicality, with this admissible or not lawyer talk. Surely it has to come down to what is right or wrong? Was it you or another City fan on here saying that if they did break the rules then they must be punished?
This isn’t just some court case, we at least pretend to care about this sport and without getting holier than thou, obviously bias affects us all but there must be a line and if City have crossed it, you can expect the vast majority of fans to not tolerate or respect a City that gets off like O.J.
I would definitely think long and hard before you cross that line in support of City, in such a situation as this, where it to happen.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Critic
Dont disagree. Just indicating what might happen.
Still lets wait and see.
Does anybody here trust UEFA? Who is their Treasure for example.
Lets wait for ALL the evidencd chaps and not tabloid nonsense.
Lets see._____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
I don’t think anybody can argue with the “evidence”, that’s very obvious. Don’t need Rumpole to explain that.
The only issue is whether the mails can be deemed “legal” considering on how they came to light and therefore admissible or not.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Adders… don’t think anybody considers UEFA with a holier than thou attitude. But I don’t think that really is the point? As I just said above, the actual evidence is pretty damning on the very simple notion of “did City do it or not?”.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.