That's what I'm saying - HOW can UEFA build a credible/strong case IF City dont' cooperate... they would need full access to City's documents/financials to do that which obviously City didn't share, so any case could only be built on whatever info they could get their hands on... and it'll be the same for any club going forward.
That's the headline and yet the statement itself says - "The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred" so either they're just really crap at wording these statements or that suggests that some of the breaches did happen but either happened too long ago or couldn't be proven. I guess we'll know more when the full findings are published.
Also City cooperating with CAS and cooperating with UEFA are obviously too very different things.
No, it is worded fine, you're just misinterpreting it. When they say time-barred, they mean UEFA do not have the jurisdiction to investigate anyway. The legitimacy of the breaches becomes immaterial to CAS as they've already concluded UEFA cannot act on it. That's the point - UEFA could not build a credible case
even if City cooperated, as they are rendered powerless by their own rules. Now, at CAS, what City have clearly done is proven that (a) UEFA are time-barred, and (b) the substance of much of their claims was incorrect. Hence the headline: 'MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS'. That is not 'time-barred', that is quite unequivocally saying UEFA's charges in that regard are untrue. But as I said, I don't expect people on a Manchester United forum to pay much attention to the facts of the case.
Yes, cooperating with UEFA and CAS is very different - one is an independent body, the other is not. The independent one ruled in favour of City, the other did not.
