I don't see why Eufa doesn't just introduce a rule that no club can take any revenue from a company that their owner also owns or has strong links to. Clubs will always be able to hide that sort of thing as legitimate so just banning it outright takes that away.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 7 seconds ago
I wonder why the UEFA found evidence to fine City for 2 years and the CAS found the evidence not conclusive enough? Does that mean the UEFA fined City frivolously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS uses the Law, UEFA does not.
UEFA got hold of stolen emails which showed exactly how City were sticking a middle finger up at FFP.
that evidence would be deemed inadmissible in a court as it was not obtained legally.
City also refused in every way to assist with UEFA's investigation.
bluntly, UEFA would have little to no evidence to present to CAS, City would have droves of doctored books and such to give to CAS.
outcome was always guaranteed given that UEFAs investigation was built on illegally obtained materials.
doesn't change the fact they cheated just makes it impossible to punish. hence my earlier point, just spend what you like and refuse to assist UEFA if they try audit you. if someone leaks your books or dodgy sponsorships deals and UEFA ban you go to CAS and they just dismiss that evidence.
simples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence obtained through illegal means is not inadmissible. It is up to the court whether to allow it or not. Many courts have allowed illegal evidence because it was relevant to the case at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS are governed by Swiss Law
152 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth. At the same time according to Art. 184 of Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law the arbitral tribunal shall itself conduct the taking of evidence.
so they will only consider UEFA dodgy evidence if they themselves conduct an investigation
CAS don't do that, so the evidence would be dismissed.
https://twitter.com/JWTelegraph/status/1282599960559616002
comment by KingKenny (U1961)
posted 16 seconds ago
I don't see why Eufa doesn't just introduce a rule that no club can take any revenue from a company that their owner also owns or has strong links to. Clubs will always be able to hide that sort of thing as legitimate so just banning it outright takes that away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because then the family of City would just create shell company after shell company to hide who the owner was.
wouldn't really impede the oil owners just create a small road bump for them
It’s a shame people seem more upset at City than the corrupt bribe taking Court of Arbitration for Sport. What world do we live in where the body that makes rulings on the Olympics can’t even be trusted.
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 7 seconds ago
I wonder why the UEFA found evidence to fine City for 2 years and the CAS found the evidence not conclusive enough? Does that mean the UEFA fined City frivolously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS uses the Law, UEFA does not.
UEFA got hold of stolen emails which showed exactly how City were sticking a middle finger up at FFP.
that evidence would be deemed inadmissible in a court as it was not obtained legally.
City also refused in every way to assist with UEFA's investigation.
bluntly, UEFA would have little to no evidence to present to CAS, City would have droves of doctored books and such to give to CAS.
outcome was always guaranteed given that UEFAs investigation was built on illegally obtained materials.
doesn't change the fact they cheated just makes it impossible to punish. hence my earlier point, just spend what you like and refuse to assist UEFA if they try audit you. if someone leaks your books or dodgy sponsorships deals and UEFA ban you go to CAS and they just dismiss that evidence.
simples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence obtained through illegal means is not inadmissible. It is up to the court whether to allow it or not. Many courts have allowed illegal evidence because it was relevant to the case at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS are governed by Swiss Law
152 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth. At the same time according to Art. 184 of Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law the arbitral tribunal shall itself conduct the taking of evidence.
so they will only consider UEFA dodgy evidence if they themselves conduct an investigation
CAS don't do that, so the evidence would be dismissed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So from your own quote "court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth"
So it is up to the court on whether to allow the evidence, which is exactly what I said.
Two words...
Money talks.
That is all.
Henry Winter @henrywinter
If Uefa could see that "many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5-year time period", why on earth did it bring/fight the case? Investigate/charge earlier. #mcfc
A wise question.
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
the breaches of the spirit of the regulations have been self-evident, flagrant, unapologetic, repeated, and unrepentant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, but other than that, what's your problem with this?
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 12 seconds ago
Henry Winter @henrywinter
If Uefa could see that "many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5-year time period", why on earth did it bring/fight the case? Investigate/charge earlier. #mcfc
A wise question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I imagine the reason they didn't bring the charge earlier was because they were unaware of the evidence, which only came out through the leak last autumn.
I agree that it seeks stupid for them to blindly charge through with it if it was outside the statute of limitations.
comment by KingKenny (U1961)
posted 13 seconds ago
I don't see why Eufa doesn't just introduce a rule that no club can take any revenue from a company that their owner also owns or has strong links to. Clubs will always be able to hide that sort of thing as legitimate so just banning it outright takes that away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP has too many holes for it to be fit for purpose
Will FFP work in real life? No
The onus on loans and debts is on the clubs and their lenders. This is not something that should be legislated by a 3rd party.
If the purpose is to stop sugar daddy clubs then UEFA need to be honest about their agenda. I suspect such rule will also get ripped apart by good lawyers
Imagine the irony.
UEFA actually prosecuting a member club for 'financial irregularities'. You couldn't make that up.
Thick as thieves.
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
I felt for the genuine MC fans. They just found out that everything they were sold was a dream. Now they cannot go and brag about the titles with other fans. Even if they win CL this year, in the mind there will always be something wrong about it.
I don't really care about if they get ban or not. In fact I'd be unhappy if my club get to CL in 5th spot. So yes, celebrate if you like. You broke the rules, spending more than you were allowed to.
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 24 seconds ago
Imagine the irony.
UEFA actually prosecuting a member club for 'financial irregularities'. You couldn't make that up.
Thick as thieves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and all in the name of trying to protect said club from themselves #FFP
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
And who's to say Yoonited won't finish 5th anyway?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why do you write "united" like this by the way? it's something a 12 year old would come up with, but then immediately delete because it was too cringeworthy.
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 10 seconds ago
I felt for the genuine MC fans. They just found out that everything they were sold was a dream. Now they cannot go and brag about the titles with other fans. Even if they win CL this year, in the mind there will always be something wrong about it.
I don't really care about if they get ban or not. In fact I'd be unhappy if my club get to CL in 5th spot. So yes, celebrate if you like. You broke the rules, spending more than you were allowed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you living a hour behind the rest of us?!
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 seconds ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is essentially a statute of limitations. If enough time has passed (in this case it appears to be 5 years) then you are no longer able to charge someone with a crime.
Apparently UEFA included a 5 year statute of limitations in their FFP regulations which means that if they don't charge someone for 5 years after any breaches then they cannot ever charge them.
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 21 seconds ago
I felt for the genuine MC fans. They just found out that everything they were sold was a dream. Now they cannot go and brag about the titles with other fans. Even if they win CL this year, in the mind there will always be something wrong about it.
I don't really care about if they get ban or not. In fact I'd be unhappy if my club get to CL in 5th spot. So yes, celebrate if you like. You broke the rules, spending more than you were allowed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve just found out literally the opposite though, why would we be feeling as though the verdict was upheld when it’s been overturned?!
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you remember when you refused to pay a credit card bill?
then 5 years ago the debt collectors couldn't come after you anymore
thats statute barred
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you remember when you refused to pay a credit card bill?
then 5 years ago the debt collectors couldn't come after you anymore
thats statute barred
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it’s 7 before it’s wiped from your credit record.
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 4 minutes ago
Imagine the irony.
UEFA actually prosecuting a member club for 'financial irregularities'. You couldn't make that up.
Thick as thieves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why do you write "united" like this by the way? it's something a 12 year old would come up with, but then immediately delete because it was too cringeworthy.
++
It's as bad as calling City, 'Citeh'
As we know it's now pronounced, 'Cheaty'
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 7 seconds ago
I wonder why the UEFA found evidence to fine City for 2 years and the CAS found the evidence not conclusive enough? Does that mean the UEFA fined City frivolously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS uses the Law, UEFA does not.
UEFA got hold of stolen emails which showed exactly how City were sticking a middle finger up at FFP.
that evidence would be deemed inadmissible in a court as it was not obtained legally.
City also refused in every way to assist with UEFA's investigation.
bluntly, UEFA would have little to no evidence to present to CAS, City would have droves of doctored books and such to give to CAS.
outcome was always guaranteed given that UEFAs investigation was built on illegally obtained materials.
doesn't change the fact they cheated just makes it impossible to punish. hence my earlier point, just spend what you like and refuse to assist UEFA if they try audit you. if someone leaks your books or dodgy sponsorships deals and UEFA ban you go to CAS and they just dismiss that evidence.
simples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence obtained through illegal means is not inadmissible. It is up to the court whether to allow it or not. Many courts have allowed illegal evidence because it was relevant to the case at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS are governed by Swiss Law
152 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth. At the same time according to Art. 184 of Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law the arbitral tribunal shall itself conduct the taking of evidence.
so they will only consider UEFA dodgy evidence if they themselves conduct an investigation
CAS don't do that, so the evidence would be dismissed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So from your own quote "court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth"
So it is up to the court on whether to allow the evidence, which is exactly what I said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly you stopped reading before the second half of that paragraph.
they would have to go and collect that same evidence themselves legally which given how it was obtained and no doubt destroyed from every server at the emptyhad would of been impossible.
but also bear in mind, CAS don't do investigations, they adjudicate and arbitrate so in essence at no point was any illegal evidence going to be considered by CAS
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 seconds ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is essentially a statute of limitations. If enough time has passed (in this case it appears to be 5 years) then you are no longer able to charge someone with a crime.
Apparently UEFA included a 5 year statute of limitations in their FFP regulations which means that if they don't charge someone for 5 years after any breaches then they cannot ever charge them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate, that makes a lot of sense. And it essentially means UEFA shot themselves in the foot. Why the heck would you put a rule like that in place anyway??
I recently discovered in Spain if a murder happened 20 years ago and the murderer is caught by then they don’t get punished. Bonkers.
Sign in if you want to comment
Man Cheaty Verdict
Page 9 of 16
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 13/7/20
I don't see why Eufa doesn't just introduce a rule that no club can take any revenue from a company that their owner also owns or has strong links to. Clubs will always be able to hide that sort of thing as legitimate so just banning it outright takes that away.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 7 seconds ago
I wonder why the UEFA found evidence to fine City for 2 years and the CAS found the evidence not conclusive enough? Does that mean the UEFA fined City frivolously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS uses the Law, UEFA does not.
UEFA got hold of stolen emails which showed exactly how City were sticking a middle finger up at FFP.
that evidence would be deemed inadmissible in a court as it was not obtained legally.
City also refused in every way to assist with UEFA's investigation.
bluntly, UEFA would have little to no evidence to present to CAS, City would have droves of doctored books and such to give to CAS.
outcome was always guaranteed given that UEFAs investigation was built on illegally obtained materials.
doesn't change the fact they cheated just makes it impossible to punish. hence my earlier point, just spend what you like and refuse to assist UEFA if they try audit you. if someone leaks your books or dodgy sponsorships deals and UEFA ban you go to CAS and they just dismiss that evidence.
simples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence obtained through illegal means is not inadmissible. It is up to the court whether to allow it or not. Many courts have allowed illegal evidence because it was relevant to the case at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS are governed by Swiss Law
152 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth. At the same time according to Art. 184 of Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law the arbitral tribunal shall itself conduct the taking of evidence.
so they will only consider UEFA dodgy evidence if they themselves conduct an investigation
CAS don't do that, so the evidence would be dismissed.
posted on 13/7/20
https://twitter.com/JWTelegraph/status/1282599960559616002
posted on 13/7/20
comment by KingKenny (U1961)
posted 16 seconds ago
I don't see why Eufa doesn't just introduce a rule that no club can take any revenue from a company that their owner also owns or has strong links to. Clubs will always be able to hide that sort of thing as legitimate so just banning it outright takes that away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
because then the family of City would just create shell company after shell company to hide who the owner was.
wouldn't really impede the oil owners just create a small road bump for them
posted on 13/7/20
It’s a shame people seem more upset at City than the corrupt bribe taking Court of Arbitration for Sport. What world do we live in where the body that makes rulings on the Olympics can’t even be trusted.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 7 seconds ago
I wonder why the UEFA found evidence to fine City for 2 years and the CAS found the evidence not conclusive enough? Does that mean the UEFA fined City frivolously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS uses the Law, UEFA does not.
UEFA got hold of stolen emails which showed exactly how City were sticking a middle finger up at FFP.
that evidence would be deemed inadmissible in a court as it was not obtained legally.
City also refused in every way to assist with UEFA's investigation.
bluntly, UEFA would have little to no evidence to present to CAS, City would have droves of doctored books and such to give to CAS.
outcome was always guaranteed given that UEFAs investigation was built on illegally obtained materials.
doesn't change the fact they cheated just makes it impossible to punish. hence my earlier point, just spend what you like and refuse to assist UEFA if they try audit you. if someone leaks your books or dodgy sponsorships deals and UEFA ban you go to CAS and they just dismiss that evidence.
simples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence obtained through illegal means is not inadmissible. It is up to the court whether to allow it or not. Many courts have allowed illegal evidence because it was relevant to the case at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS are governed by Swiss Law
152 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth. At the same time according to Art. 184 of Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law the arbitral tribunal shall itself conduct the taking of evidence.
so they will only consider UEFA dodgy evidence if they themselves conduct an investigation
CAS don't do that, so the evidence would be dismissed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So from your own quote "court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth"
So it is up to the court on whether to allow the evidence, which is exactly what I said.
posted on 13/7/20
Two words...
Money talks.
That is all.
posted on 13/7/20
Henry Winter @henrywinter
If Uefa could see that "many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5-year time period", why on earth did it bring/fight the case? Investigate/charge earlier. #mcfc
A wise question.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
the breaches of the spirit of the regulations have been self-evident, flagrant, unapologetic, repeated, and unrepentant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, but other than that, what's your problem with this?
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 12 seconds ago
Henry Winter @henrywinter
If Uefa could see that "many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5-year time period", why on earth did it bring/fight the case? Investigate/charge earlier. #mcfc
A wise question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I imagine the reason they didn't bring the charge earlier was because they were unaware of the evidence, which only came out through the leak last autumn.
I agree that it seeks stupid for them to blindly charge through with it if it was outside the statute of limitations.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by KingKenny (U1961)
posted 13 seconds ago
I don't see why Eufa doesn't just introduce a rule that no club can take any revenue from a company that their owner also owns or has strong links to. Clubs will always be able to hide that sort of thing as legitimate so just banning it outright takes that away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP has too many holes for it to be fit for purpose
Will FFP work in real life? No
The onus on loans and debts is on the clubs and their lenders. This is not something that should be legislated by a 3rd party.
If the purpose is to stop sugar daddy clubs then UEFA need to be honest about their agenda. I suspect such rule will also get ripped apart by good lawyers
posted on 13/7/20
Imagine the irony.
UEFA actually prosecuting a member club for 'financial irregularities'. You couldn't make that up.
Thick as thieves.
posted on 13/7/20
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
posted on 13/7/20
I felt for the genuine MC fans. They just found out that everything they were sold was a dream. Now they cannot go and brag about the titles with other fans. Even if they win CL this year, in the mind there will always be something wrong about it.
I don't really care about if they get ban or not. In fact I'd be unhappy if my club get to CL in 5th spot. So yes, celebrate if you like. You broke the rules, spending more than you were allowed to.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 24 seconds ago
Imagine the irony.
UEFA actually prosecuting a member club for 'financial irregularities'. You couldn't make that up.
Thick as thieves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and all in the name of trying to protect said club from themselves #FFP
posted on 13/7/20
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
And who's to say Yoonited won't finish 5th anyway?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why do you write "united" like this by the way? it's something a 12 year old would come up with, but then immediately delete because it was too cringeworthy.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 10 seconds ago
I felt for the genuine MC fans. They just found out that everything they were sold was a dream. Now they cannot go and brag about the titles with other fans. Even if they win CL this year, in the mind there will always be something wrong about it.
I don't really care about if they get ban or not. In fact I'd be unhappy if my club get to CL in 5th spot. So yes, celebrate if you like. You broke the rules, spending more than you were allowed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you living a hour behind the rest of us?!
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 seconds ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is essentially a statute of limitations. If enough time has passed (in this case it appears to be 5 years) then you are no longer able to charge someone with a crime.
Apparently UEFA included a 5 year statute of limitations in their FFP regulations which means that if they don't charge someone for 5 years after any breaches then they cannot ever charge them.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by red_evils (U19878)
posted 21 seconds ago
I felt for the genuine MC fans. They just found out that everything they were sold was a dream. Now they cannot go and brag about the titles with other fans. Even if they win CL this year, in the mind there will always be something wrong about it.
I don't really care about if they get ban or not. In fact I'd be unhappy if my club get to CL in 5th spot. So yes, celebrate if you like. You broke the rules, spending more than you were allowed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve just found out literally the opposite though, why would we be feeling as though the verdict was upheld when it’s been overturned?!
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you remember when you refused to pay a credit card bill?
then 5 years ago the debt collectors couldn't come after you anymore
thats statute barred
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you remember when you refused to pay a credit card bill?
then 5 years ago the debt collectors couldn't come after you anymore
thats statute barred
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it’s 7 before it’s wiped from your credit record.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 4 minutes ago
Imagine the irony.
UEFA actually prosecuting a member club for 'financial irregularities'. You couldn't make that up.
Thick as thieves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 13/7/20
why do you write "united" like this by the way? it's something a 12 year old would come up with, but then immediately delete because it was too cringeworthy.
++
It's as bad as calling City, 'Citeh'
As we know it's now pronounced, 'Cheaty'
posted on 13/7/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Gunnerthru (U6675)
posted 7 seconds ago
I wonder why the UEFA found evidence to fine City for 2 years and the CAS found the evidence not conclusive enough? Does that mean the UEFA fined City frivolously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS uses the Law, UEFA does not.
UEFA got hold of stolen emails which showed exactly how City were sticking a middle finger up at FFP.
that evidence would be deemed inadmissible in a court as it was not obtained legally.
City also refused in every way to assist with UEFA's investigation.
bluntly, UEFA would have little to no evidence to present to CAS, City would have droves of doctored books and such to give to CAS.
outcome was always guaranteed given that UEFAs investigation was built on illegally obtained materials.
doesn't change the fact they cheated just makes it impossible to punish. hence my earlier point, just spend what you like and refuse to assist UEFA if they try audit you. if someone leaks your books or dodgy sponsorships deals and UEFA ban you go to CAS and they just dismiss that evidence.
simples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence obtained through illegal means is not inadmissible. It is up to the court whether to allow it or not. Many courts have allowed illegal evidence because it was relevant to the case at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS are governed by Swiss Law
152 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth. At the same time according to Art. 184 of Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law the arbitral tribunal shall itself conduct the taking of evidence.
so they will only consider UEFA dodgy evidence if they themselves conduct an investigation
CAS don't do that, so the evidence would be dismissed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So from your own quote "court shall consider illegally obtained evidence only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth"
So it is up to the court on whether to allow the evidence, which is exactly what I said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
clearly you stopped reading before the second half of that paragraph.
they would have to go and collect that same evidence themselves legally which given how it was obtained and no doubt destroyed from every server at the emptyhad would of been impossible.
but also bear in mind, CAS don't do investigations, they adjudicate and arbitrate so in essence at no point was any illegal evidence going to be considered by CAS
posted on 13/7/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 seconds ago
Can someone explain to the dim amongst us what the fack time barred even means
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is essentially a statute of limitations. If enough time has passed (in this case it appears to be 5 years) then you are no longer able to charge someone with a crime.
Apparently UEFA included a 5 year statute of limitations in their FFP regulations which means that if they don't charge someone for 5 years after any breaches then they cannot ever charge them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks mate, that makes a lot of sense. And it essentially means UEFA shot themselves in the foot. Why the heck would you put a rule like that in place anyway??
I recently discovered in Spain if a murder happened 20 years ago and the murderer is caught by then they don’t get punished. Bonkers.
Page 9 of 16
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14