By “new evidence,” you refer to illegally obtained emails.
by tex29 (2020-02-19 10:37:15)
Edited on 2020-02-19 23:16:58

In reply to: On your last two paragraphs, new evidence has come to light  posted by fontoknow


Regardless, I would be surprised if that is a permissible basis to avoid a settlement agreement that specifically addressed the issue of whether City inflated the value of its sponsorships from purportedly related entities in the relevant time period—a settlement UEFA has already formally acknowledged was complied with and closed. Moreover, FFP’s limitations provisions appear to prohibit punishment for alleged breaches from more than 5 years ago—regardless of whatever “new evidence” is claimed to have been found.

Of course, we don’t have access to UEFA’s opinion, so we don’t have any way to know the strength of its legal analysis.

In any event, if you are a lawyer or are at all interested in an intellectually honest look at the situation, I recommend the following links for your reading pleasure:

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

For a good piece about how FFP itself is a sham, I recommend:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8013475/amp/The-game-framed-UEFA-Europes-privileged-elite-BENT.html?__twitter_impression=true