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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
That us a very strongly worded defence that suggests we are prepared to take things as far as is required.
 
Even if we aren’t found to breach the FFP rules, we will NEVER get an apology in the media.
If we are, then that’s really foolish by those in the accountancy area.
Fisting inbound.
 
Don't think City are going to let that one go.

They've either lied about their source or broken the confidentiality of the whole investigation and dropped UEFA in it.

Either way it looks a lot better for us on paper.
 
Last edited:
Is someone able to provide me with a timestamp between City's statement and New York Times taking out attributing the entire article to a source familiar with the investigation?

Which came first?

Asking for a friend ;)

Whatever has been happening, this is a massive day in City's favour.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
David Gill and Rick Parry stood down at their respective clubs years ago, does that make it any less pertinent or concerning as a prior relationship between Liverpool's owners and a newspaper which was its second largest stakeholder?

Is there anybody out there who doesn't believe people such as these retain contacts and previous alliances?
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between Parry/Gill as chief execs and still involved in the game at various levels, and the NYT as a shareholder.

I am not at all surprised that a major northeast US newspaper has links with a major northeast US sports group; I'd be a whole lot more surprised if they didn't. The NYT holding company also owned the Boston Globe which was sold to Henry of FSG in 2013 - I just don't see an issue in it.
 
MCFC1993 said:
So the New York Times have now removed the 'UEFA Sources' part of the article.

Don't think City are going to let that one go.

They've either lied about their source or broken the confidentiality of the whole investigation and dropped UEFA in it.

Either way it looks a lot better for us on paper.
Click to expand...

Yes , after the brilliant statement by city today ...UEFA have really shot themselves in the foot


Skysports were right ....we have the best sports lawyers
 
I do sincerely hope that all these journalists who have such a strong moral obligation to report on City's financing and our "doping" will apply these standards to the World Cup when it's in Qatar in 2022. I hope they stand by their strong morals that they've harped on about all year. Somehow though, I doubt the ****s will miss an opportunity to go and watch the World Cup on an all expenses paid for trip.

Wankers
 
Last edited:
PrezIke said:
Intake it you're a Brexit/Trump supporter then?

Meanwhile their record on investigative journalism is widely known and respect Ed in the profession of journalism which has ethical standard on such reporting.

Point to a consistent track record of lying or reporting from flimsy sources? The two times I can recall where the Iraq WMD article that was propaganda from Bush's administration and the writer who was found to make up stories. Their standards, if anything, have increased.

Are they without criticism ever? No. But going after their credibility here does not make much sense. What's the angle for them to lie here or portray City poorly, again?
Click to expand...


Really don't understand your NY Times fan club, but in 2018 they had to print over 4100 retractions and/or corrections, they published 55k articles, so over 7% of everything they published contained errors.I have very little respect for Journalist's these days but to me an error rate of 7 % is a fucking disgrace, certainly nothing to lauded or place on a pedestal of professional excellence.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Is someone able to provide me with a timestamp between City's statement and New York Times taking out attributing the entire article to a source familiar with the investigation?

Which came first?

Asking for a friend ;)

Whatever has been happening, this is a massive day in City's favour.
Click to expand...
Think it’s nyt first .
 
Got a few more messages from various supporters of other clubs this morning referencing the NYT article and questioning how I could support a club that cheat and are owned by the “monsters” that are the UAE.

Going to have to either start ignoring them or craft a boilerplate response to save myself the trouble of putting constant effort in to responding.

The righteous indignation of these people, who support clubs who also receive (directly or indirectly) funding from the UAE, SA, China, and Russia is infuriating. It’s starting to pop up at my league games, as well.
 
Oleole123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
“What was the losing bid?”

That fuckers been upset for nearly a decade.
 
Chi-town blues said:
Think it’s nyt first .
Click to expand...

In which case, the Uefa source already knew the bollock which had been dropped :)

City statement just confirmed their worst fears.

Let's be clear, either the journo now falls on his sword and says he made up such a detailed article (this rendering his career and rep in the gutter and his paper open to a multi-million pound legal)

Or, he confirms what we know all along, he's been given it by someone with an agenda who didn't have the legal nous to realise how fucking stupid they really were in the first instance.

Either way, they are Abu Dhabi royally fucked and we are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top