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

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Most importantly in this affair, the "whistleblower" is nothing of the sort. He is a thief and an extortionist who blackmailed clubs in Portugal to prevent publication of hacked emails. As such there is absolutely no guarantee that the publisted emails have not been modified in some way. Probably not but there is no guarantee.

I found it ironic that a man who freely admits that he illegally hacked a computer had the temerity to woman about the police entering his home without a warrant. Not that they should have, but . . .

 

[Bluemeanster]

It would have expired at midnight tonight - hence the action today.

That would make it five years from the original punishment/sanctions ( 16 may14) and not when they became aware of the "cause of action" surely

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

This has probably already been mentioned but UEFA are clearly briefing journalists about the nature of their case against City.

First there was the NYT, now the BBC.

If you read the Dan Roan report, he's appears to have a source close to the investigation.

For example,

"And it is thought that Uefa's investigators feel more confident that they have a solid argument this time.

That may be because this case is unusual in that City stand accused of misleading Uefa's investigators, rather than simply a conventional FFP breach of inflating the value of a sponsorship deal and failing to break even.

It has been noted by some at Uefa that City are insisting they have provided evidence that proves that the "accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false", but in their statements they do not refer to the more pertinent allegation that they may have misled investigators."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885

I don't quite understand the distinction between financial irregularities and misleading investigators. If City's documentation proves the sponsorship agreements are valid, and sourced from Company funds, then how have we misled investigators? I don't understand what they mean by misleading investigators. Do they mean misleading them as to the source of the money? I am very confident that Etihad Airways will be able to corroborate their sponsorship and that does not leave much else of significant value so what is UEFA's case.

Dan Roan leaves it as misleading investigators, but what does that mean. It's supposedly pertinent but it's not obvious to me what their concern is.

I am tempted to think that City have actually been able to refute their main allegation of inflated sponsorships, so they have in UEFA style, changed tack again.

Quite right, I have been making this same point for two days. Trying to put it together is hard; it's like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces don't seem to match up. If they are calling our audited financials fraudulent that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Maybe because UEFA knows doing so risks open warfare with City, the sponsors, the accounting firms, etc. so they lean on the "we were mislead" argument because they based our fine/squad cap/settlement on the pre-2010 wages breach when they could have gone down the inflated sponsorship path but didn't because they had City nailed on the easier-to-prove-mathematically charge (after, of course, the goalposts were moved).

So now UEFA says, "Well if we had suspected at the time what Football Leaks said you did, we would have gone after you much harder and drilled you with a higher fine/ban/etc." And we say, "You didn't, so it's moot, and anyway we are prepared to argue that our financials are sound and this infusion of sponsorship money was allowable under the rules, just as we were then." But that falls on deaf ears, because the IC says, "Too late for that -- we're out of time under the statute of limitations, and we've got you for not being forthright during the process so now we have free rein to put you in double jeopardy whether your books are proper or not."

 

[remember arthur mann]

Looks like our number is up, the charge has been changed again to WMD ! Suppose Tony and George will pop their heads up !!

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

According to the BBC's Dan Roan, UEFA 'were actually considerate of City's footballing interests by waiting until after the club had retained the Premier League title before referring their case.'

Then goes on to say how we have a cup final at the weekend and how this should have been an uninterrupted week of celebrations.

Contradictory cnut.

 

[hello]

Quite right, I have been making this same point for two days. Trying to put the pieces together is hard; it's like a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces don't seem to match up. If they are calling our audited financials fraudulent that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Maybe because UEFA knows doing so risks open warfare with City, the sponsors, the accounting firms, etc. so they lean on the "we were mislead" argument because they based our fine/squad cap on the pre-2010 wages breach when they could have gone down the inflated sponsorship path but didn't because they had City nailed on the easier-to-prove-mathematically charge (after, of course, the goalposts were moved).

But even putting a uefa hat on, shit I need to wash my hair at the thought, how is it possible to get misled, you received a set of audited accounts, review those accounts and if necessary can seek clarification, if uefa now think they misinterpreted something that’s not being misled just incompetent.

 

[City Raider]

Seen a few back pages and nothing on this but a couple with positive stories in build up to cup final

 

[BosnianBlue]

I have to say I'm finding this whole thing a bit odd.

City are absolutely adamant that they've not done anything wrong, to the point where it's not even confidence as opposed to outright bullish certainty.

UEFA must know that City are going to take this to a court where there's legitimate independence eventually, and they're opening themselves up to damages, to publicly being slapped down and to further undermining of FFP if they carry on without a good case.


So what's going on? Either UEFA are doing something they know will get humiliatingly knocked down in a proper court, or the club's confidence is completely misplaced.

Might still be an agreed game by UEFA and City. Both save the face and some silly compromise agreed on the end.

 

[Parisian]

The Jordan shirt branding deal was master stroke tbf, made you unique, got you away from the shit nike kits and with the big name shirt personalisation's must have made psg an absolute killing.

This is Neymar effect !

It is a huge success. Even people that dislike PSG (casual or fan of other teams) are actually liking and buying the collection.

PSG new owner has always tried to build a brand bigger than a simple football club (like Lakers, New Yankees), these are two articles in english that details all the collaborations :
https://urbanpitch.com/psg-embraced-fashion-culture-become-footballs-hippest-team/
https://www.soccerbible.com/lifestyle/clothing/2019/01/psgs-trailblazing-strides-in-fashion/

Just went on Redcafe and they are already talking about stripping you from your local titles... Even if UEFA was banning you, i don't see what that has to do with the league.

Are the rules in place in 2014 in Premier League the same that in Europe ? I don't really know the specificities of your PL FFP.

 

[The Colonel]

Yup. That's what pisses me off more. So before we were bought by Mansour, it was okay for clubs to spend and go bankrupt. But when we started spending without any debts, it was bad for football. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Sorry to repeat myself but from Platini’s own mouth:

"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter," Platini said. "They do not want to fork out any more.“