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

[ganganvince]

All I can think is they are in receipt of damning emails with evidence we loopholed FFP. I’m certain the club are watertight on the financial evidence but perhaps these emails show how we skirted round it? They obviously think we have deceived them. It was all quiet until these Spiegel emails came to light.

Let’s be realistic if they don’t get us on this they will find a way to f**k us over on signing youth players or Prem FFP or even selling out of date pies they want a fat cheque and don’t care how they get it.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Corruption comes in many forms, pretty much like 'the Devil'. The BBC are by far, one of the worst organisations guilty at masquerading it's allegiances. Take that dirty, rotten c**t 'Jimmy Saville', did they not pull the curtains in on that one? For years covering for his deviance's whilst playing the morality card. Do us a favour, yer leftist, lying cock-wombles. Sign of the times i'm afraid, we must ride it out then give it to em!!

We only have to look at how complicit the BBC were in blackmailing and calling in favours to be a part of the Cliff Richard carve up.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

You really think it was the right thing to do?

No it wasn’t

The day before, or on FA Cup Final Day, to sack the Manager, was absolute Madness.

All the club had to do was hold fire until after City won (or lost) the cup, and after the victory parade, and then later that Week after everything had settled down, they should have quietly, in-private, and with as little fuss as possible, and after negotiating terms with Mancini, sacked him.

You must be the only City who didn’t have their day ruined from the moment the sacking rumours started to gather pace around Wembley, until Wigan lifted the FA Cup.

Like many City fans I’ve witnessed numerous lows at City, and that was definitely one of them.

Anyway, back to topic.

F*** off UEFA, Gill, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Bayern, Real Madrid, Barcelona, all the other cartel clubs and European football associations, mainly La Liga and the Bundesliga, who are trying constantly to f*** City over!

This has passed now mate & this thread certainly isn't the place for yet another debate on this.

Love Bobby & from starting going late '71 having missed most of Joe/Malc he's by far even now my favourite manager, without him we'd have not reached tick tock as soon but he'd made his position untenable, the timing thing was a Barca backlash but the writing was already on the wall. I've read a few times on here & think it's probably true that if we'd not beaten QPR he would have been turfed after that game as Pep was lined up but we won so Pep had to wait a little while longer to come to god's own club.

 

[Marvin]

Which part suggests that?
I didn't see much that couldn't be compiled from known info in this case and past UEFA disciplinary actions (also known).

A mixture of both I reckon. Dan Ron's piece reads as if he has been talking to people close to the investigation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885

See the following extracts from his article.

The conclusion is he's sourced this direct from UEFA or from someone, or some people close to the investigation. Either way, UEFA investigation is leaking, and the allegations in of themselves are damaging to City's reputation. The alternative is he has made it up - I doubt that.

Extracts:

• Uefa has not confirmed this or revealed whether former Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme - the chief investigator - has agreed with his colleagues and recommended such a sanction, but the BBC understands that he has.
  
• And it is thought that Uefa's investigators feel more confident that they have a solid argument this time.
  
• 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.
  
• It is understood that investigators are confident they can show this decision was not rushed because of this 'statute of limitations' deadline.
  
• I understand that some Uefa investigators were initially unsure whether it was their responsibility to assess whether City had misled them. But they eventually concluded that because FFP requires clubs to truthfully report their financial affairs and transactions when they apply for a licence to compete in European club competitions, it fell within their remit.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

You're right, that's the obvious thing to do, so Mancini must have fucked up royally for a chairman as calm and reasonable as Khaldoon to sack him before the cup final.

On the one hand we have one of the most calm collected businessmen on the planet who has run thos club brilliantly, and on the other we have an emotional time bomb in Mancini who has gotten himself sacked a dozen times, usually involving high profile arguments with owners.

Why on earth would you assume Khaldoon was in the wrong?

Think the last 6 years have proven it was the right decision. Loved Mancini to bits for what he did for the club but it’s quite telling no high profile clubs have gone near him since his departure.

 

[Damanino]

They got half of the job done already. After winning the league 90% of City news in media is all about cheating, doping, CL ban next season or 1 year later. Tarnishing our achievements. Even if we dont get any ban or fines later they still will be happy that they did this to us.

I am sure they already have new negative stories to be coming out Saturday night or maybe scheduled at Sunday.

Compare all this to what would have been going on in the media if Liverpool wins the title. They do hate City with passion, some journos on twitter are literally praying every day that they ban us, Castles, Traiq Panja, Nick Harris, every match we win they are the first to bring up human rights, financial doping, transfer spending etc.

The club has to handle it hard, taking pinches got us into this sort of situation.

 

[CC1]

Charles Flint QC. (one of the five sitting on the CFCB panel)

Cambridge educated and specialist financial lawyer.

Director of Dubai Financial Services Authority.

Interesting...

In a good way? Or is it ominous

 

[BlueAnorak]

Which part suggests that?
I didn't see much that couldn't be compiled from known info in this case and past UEFA disciplinary actions (also known).

Where he moves on to the various options for conclusion.
"It is understood that investigators are confident they can show this decision was not rushed because of this 'statute of limitations' deadline."
Understood by whom? The investigators, the IC? Why are UEFA briefing on a supposedly confidential process?

 

[hihosilva]

They have to review all the evidence we have previously submitted to the other panel.

So probably in the next half hour!

Haha

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A mixture of both I reckon. Dan Ron's piece reads as if he has been talking to people close to the investigation. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885

See the following extracts from his article.

The conclusion is he's source this direct from UEFA or from someone, or some people close to the investigation. Either way, UEFA investigation is leaking, and the allegations in of themselves are damaging to City's reputation.

Extracts:

• Uefa has not confirmed this or revealed whether former Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme - the chief investigator - has agreed with his colleagues and recommended such a sanction, but the BBC understands that he has.
  
• And it is thought that Uefa's investigators feel more confident that they have a solid argument this time.
  
• 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.
  
• It is understood that investigators are confident they can show this decision was not rushed because of this 'statute of limitations' deadline.
  
• I understand that some Uefa investigators were initially unsure whether it was their responsibility to assess whether City had misled them. But they eventually concluded that because FFP requires clubs to truthfully report their financial affairs and transactions when they apply for a licence to compete in European club competitions, it fell within their remit.

Cheers.
I think this is a matter of viewpoint.
(1) if there wasn't a recommendation, then it would have been thrown out by Leterme. Therefore, there is a recommendation above that Leterme can issue.
(2) Nothing clear, might be briefed, might be waffle.
(3) Could be from anyone, and not necessarily an investigator. I also think it's true as far as club public statements go.
(4) Sounds like a PR response to a question, carefully worded to get a response. I don't think it matters who, they can hardly say 'yes' to such a question!
(5) Sounds more solid, but I don't really see it as a leak. Much like (1), if they didn't think it was their job, they wouldn't do it. I suspect this has come from an old discussion where it was talked about, that or a direct question which has been answered.

I don't think much suggests there's a leak or anything other than procedural briefings, rather than briefings specific to the investigation.

 

[jrb]

I wonder if Rick Parry is having a night out in Liverpool soon?

“Hi Rick.”

“Fancy meeting you here.”

“So, what happened?”

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Where he moves on to the various options for conclusion.
"It is understood that investigators are confident they can show this decision was not rushed because of this 'statute of limitations' deadline."
Understood by whom? The investigators, the IC? Why are UEFA briefing on a supposedly confidential process.

Thanks. The 'thoughts' and 'understoods' certainly allow various interpretations.

To me, this sounds like an answer to a question "did you rush to meet the deadline" "the committee is confident that we can show this is not true". The answer couldn't be "yes"!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I certainly don't expect it but if one of the 'big 4' were getting this shit from UEFA the FA, Prem & media would be releasing statements left right & centre in support after all this reflects badly on both the former organisations.

 

[blue ranger]

All I can think is they are in receipt of damning emails with evidence we loopholed FFP. I’m certain the club are watertight on the financial evidence but perhaps these emails show how we skirted round it? They obviously think we have deceived them. It was all quiet until these Spiegel emails came to light.

It was mate. I have to be honest I’m not as confident as others but have got everything crossed we come through this unscathed.

 

[Marvin]

In a good way? Or is it ominous

The BBC's Dan Roan says that "Portuguese judge Jose Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues is the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber and will look at the case with at least three of its four members - vice-chairmen Christiaan Timmermans, of the Netherlands, Switzerland's Louis Peila, English QC Charles Flint and Adam Giersz, Poland's former sports minister.

I assume he has been reading UEFA's disciplinary processes. They publically detail their structure and members of their committees. It maybe that Charles Flint does not play a part?

 

[hammocity]

Surely it's a different thing to PSG though?

City broke FFP losses - got sanctioned.
PSG broke FFP losses - got sanctioned.

City alleged to have tried getting round owner investment rules - being investigated.
PSG - haven't been accused of this as far as I know.

You only have to look at the Neymar and Mbappe deals and the hugely overvalued Qatar sponsorship deals to realise PSG are still flouting the laws. Infantio who was at Uefa at the time and Laurent Platini who is essentially employed by the Qataris were involved in dodgy deals, google those names, there is plenty of speculation on PSG’s misdemeanours but Uefa seem to be very quiet on their issues.

Also when we were fined we got the same punishment as PSG even though they over inflated their sponsorship deals far more than we were supposed to have done.

 

[Skip Donoghue]

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.

I hope I'm totally wrong with this

But could the misleading investigators part, be that some of the money for the Etihad deal may well have come from the Emir (HH) and even though this is nothing to do with SM, Uefa feel that this was not disclosed originally and so by definition on Uefa's part City have misled them

I'm just putting this out there as we know Uefa like to move the goal posts

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

All I can think is they are in receipt of damning emails with evidence we loopholed FFP. I’m certain the club are watertight on the financial evidence but perhaps these emails show how we skirted round it? They obviously think we have deceived them. It was all quiet until these Spiegel emails came to light.

I've said this before but it's worth saying it again. The hugely frustrating part of all this is that to a large extent it's self-inflicted. A club of our size, knowing we have lots of enemies in football, should have had state level security in place. That means a fully secure server and high level encryption of emails. We had neither so an individual accessed everything with absolute ease and that really is unforgivable.

 

[BlueAnorak]

For CAS to get involved, City and UEFA have to agree a CAS decision is final. City will probably take the CAS route on any judgement, but it is not the end of the proces. Under certain circumstances City can still go through the Swis Federal courts - the legal jurisdiction of UEFA - especially on procedure related matters. See CAS FAQ:
https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html

 

[blueparrot]

I've said this before but it's worth saying it again. The hugely frustrating part of all this is that to a large extent it's self-inflicted. A club of our size, knowing we have lots of enemies in football, should have had state level security in place. That means a fully secure server and high level encryption of emails. We had neither so an individual accessed everything with absolute ease and that really is unforgivable.

We have no idea how easy it was and as millions of e-mails were stolen from many clubs it doesn't sound that self inflicted.