UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Marvin]

Moving our way. NYT and Manchester City statement both suggest that City and UEFA both feel we can refute charges of sponsorship inflation which means the allegations are more about subterfuge which to my mind is a lesser charge.....and who can blame us if we did operate in that manner given the way the cartel have operated against us.

 

[jrb]

From the bottom of the MEN, City Statement, article.

Original typo error from the NYT now edited.

MEN.

The original New York Times article which said the information had come from a source familiar with the case, appears to have been edited, and now carries no reference to any source.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Funny as fck if we win it next year before a ban and choose not to accept the cup.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...-unlawfully-obtained-evidence/5062566.article

In short, its allowed but will vary from country to country.

Allowed in the UK perhaps. Our case will probably end up with CAS and possibly the EU. The type of breach and whether there was any blackmail or organized espionage may be taken into account.

 

[Marvin]

All I will say is that it gives them a choice. If they now go ahead and propose a ban (especially of one year) it will show that it was a real leak and that the integrity of the investigation is compromised. That's as serious as it gets for a professionally conducted enquiry and strengthens our potential argument that it was never a properly-conducted independent investigation but a pre-judged witch-hunt. And the answers to the questions I have posed above need to be answere. Who and why.

The NYT has a choice. They can either admit they made it up (which no-one believes they did) and explain why or, alternatively, confirm that they do indeed have a source from within the enquiry (who they will not, and don't have to, name) which has the effect described above.

Believe me, this is a major bollock dropped.

But isn't a newspaper entitled to make enquiries. On the face of it this is a mistake by UEFA rather than collusion with the NYT. I thought the NYT article was quite neutral and the one bit of news they had, suggested that UEFA was on the back foot.

 

[domalino]

I think it has gotten to the point where the investigation simply ending and us not getting banned is not enough.

If we are innocent, we need to go after the people who have tried to have us declared guilty in the press before and will write off any innocent verdict as UEFA being corrupt.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

WE WON THE LEAGUE, WE WON THE LEAGUE, NAH NAH NAHNANNA WE WON THE LEAGUE.

They can stick their fake news propaganda up their arses. So fkin bored of it, they can try but they aint taking my joy away.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

In my head I hope this all plays out where we are able to publicly out the real fuckers behind all this - the established G14 cartel and there supporters in the halls of power, who are actively trying to make European and domestic football a closed shop

 

[Oleole123]

Can't we do the fuckers for stealing the data?

Methinks Liverpool are on very rocky ground here if they are indeed behind this smear campaign because the people behind City are far more powerful than John W.Henry will ever be. Plus I doubt they're squeaky clean themselves

Wtf why should. Liverpool even behind the campaign. The campaign is coming from Bayern Barcelona and Real 1000%. Over the years they are trying to stop Psg and City.

 

[M18CTID]

Can anyone remember what the UEFA statement announcing the investigation said? I'm pretty sure they said they wouldn't be commenting further until the conclusion of the investigation? If so, then surely they're on rocky ground now that some slimy **** has been gobbing off to the media

 

[Summerbuzz]

From the bottom of the MEN, City Statement, article.

Original typo error from the NYT now edited.

MEN.

The original New York Times article which said the information had come from a source familiar with the case, appears to have been edited, and now carries no reference to any source.

At the same time as The Telegraph and SSN run the same line and mention a source? My first reaction is there is some obfuscation going on there, an attempt to distract from the original NYT source.

 

[rowarta]

Wonder if BBC will update their top story article?

looks like they have included elements of the City statement, but not changed the clickbait headline "Manchester City could face a Uefa ban from Champions League for a season"

 

[Blue Llama]

Not bothered either way. If banned it takes out 9 to 10 midweek games leaving us fresher to achieve an unprecedented 3 titles in a row.

 

[OntarioBlue]

It’s good to see that the Club have finally come out of the corner with the gloves up. If, as we state, we have done nothing wrong, we have to be prepared to fight and kill this nonsense once and for all.

 

[M18CTID]

Wtf why should. Liverpool even behind the campaign. The campaign is coming from Bayern Barcelona and Real 1000%. Over the years they are trying to stop Psg and City.

I wouldn't put anything past Cult FC

 

[mat]

looks like they have included elements of the City statement, but not changed the clickbait headline "Manchester City could face a Uefa ban from Champions League for a season"

They've cherry picked the City statement on BBC News 24. Literally only used the first two lines.

 

[Henkeman]

Hmm, the NYT are going to be asked if there were sources or not. Not to disclose them of course, but they can't put that sources said and then remove it. It just makes it look dodgy.

 

[the talisman]

A great response from City, I love the belligerent tone, UEFA can be in no doubt that the club is spoiling for a fight.
I cannot imagine such a response unless City have full confidence that we will win.

Is this still the old allegation about the Sheik paying Etihad who then paid City? And if so is it true that UEFA have no right to open Etihad’s books? That was always my understanding but I’m no expert and would appreciate a response from someone who is.... cheers

 

[Newman Noggs]

But isn't a newspaper entitled to make enquiries. On the face of it this is a mistake by UEFA rather than collusion with the NYT. I thought the NYT article was quite neutral and the one bit of news they had, suggested that UEFA was on the back foot.

Of course they are, it's their job to. I'm asked by the press all the time about ongoing investigations but it's ethically sacrosanct that you cannot comment on ongoing investigations.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Allowed in the UK perhaps. Our case will probably end up with CAS and possibly the EU. The type of breach and whether there was any blackmail or organized espionage may be taken into account.

This might be more relevant then.

http://www.cisarbitration.com/2018/...idence-in-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/

According to Art. 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. However, Swiss Civil Procedure Code is inapplicable to arbitral proceedings and the arbitrators have the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence.

It is a well-established practice that arbitral tribunals enjoy considerable discretion and are not necessarily barred from taking into account evidence, which may prove inadmissible in civil or criminal state courts. Taking into account CAS case law, CAS panels are likely to take into account evidence, unlawfully obtained, which would not be admissible in state courts of most of the countries. So far CAS has adopted an approach that the end justifies the means.