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

[CelesteItis]

In its current form, FFP is more akin to a protectionist cartel from a fascist neoliberal capitalist regime.

There. Fixeth. ;)

 

[mikemcfc]

City Man said: ↑
"Never mind about the shit that sticks. This is football and things come and go quickly. 13 years ago Juventus were reviled in football due to out and out corruption. Now they are the Grand Old Lady of European footie. Many neutrals would like to see them lift the CL trophy. We are a phenomenon in European football. If the worst comes to the worst and we get kicked out of the CL for a season, we'll come back stronger. We are now a great club, and that won't change."

Liverpool made sure all English teams were banned from Europe for five years and apparently Liverpool are fkn great!

 

[mikemcfc]

If the posts were littered with spelling and grammar errors and clearly were the ramblings of a bitter old chronic alcoholic, there's a chance it could have been 'Aldo'

just in general on here, the time for good grammar and spelling is long went.

 

[BlueBas]

City Man said: ↑
"Never mind about the shit that sticks. This is football and things come and go quickly. 13 years ago Juventus were reviled in football due to out and out corruption. Now they are the Grand Old Lady of European footie. Many neutrals would like to see them lift the CL trophy. We are a phenomenon in European football. If the worst comes to the worst and we get kicked out of the CL for a season, we'll come back stronger. We are now a great club, and that won't change."

Liverpool made sure all English teams were banned from Europe for five years and apparently Liverpool are fkn great!

Funny how a club big on 'istree are so adept at rewriting it!

 

[Impeccable One]

My 2cents from a very simplistic point of view.

A ban will only be enforced after City have exhausted ALL legal proceedings, on the basis the club is innocent.

Remember Khaldoon made reference to 'accepting' a small slap on the wrist when we were previously fined, putting everyone on notice, they believed they were innocent, but would contest any further claim of wrong doing in the future

If City don't pursue any false claim to the highest court, then I'll take that as an admission of guilt.

And here's the bit I don't see anyone mention ... If there has been an attempt to deceive regarding sponsorship income, does anyone think the guys at City and those sponsors would have made such a bad job of covering their tracks?

This is a hatchet job and at some point UEFA will be begging to close this matter without them losing face, power or significant income, as they'll be shown to be the biased corrupt organisation they are.

In short, this issue will only end with City being winners & UEFA being losers, unless we really are guilty.

 

[Breadsnapper]

If you notice when he's reporting from the ground he's not on City property, he's normally stood across the road so yes he's still banned....and still a **** for good measure.

So it's not like he's an axe to grind.

 

[Indaparkside]

My 2cents from a very simplistic point of view.

A ban will only be enforced after City have exhausted ALL legal proceedings, on the basis the club is innocent.

Remember Khaldoon made reference to 'accepting' a small slap on the wrist when we were previously fined, putting everyone on notice, they believed they were innocent, but would contest any further claim of wrong doing in the future

If City don't pursue any false claim to the highest court, then I'll take that as an admission of guilt.

And here's the bit I don't see anyone mention ... If there has been an attempt to deceive regarding sponsorship income, does anyone think the guys at City and those sponsors would have made such a bad job of covering their tracks?

This is a hatchet job and at some point UEFA will be begging to close this matter without them losing face, power or significant income, as they'll be shown to be the biased corrupt organisation they are.

In short, this issue will only end with City being winners & UEFA being losers, unless we really are guilty.

Thank you judge rinder:)

 

[Fordyboy46]

I keep on hearing a decision is imminent, but still fuck all. Tomorrow afternoon maybe?, or maybe there is no decision, who fucking knows.

 

[Breadsnapper]

This is simply as misinformed as when non City fans (with no clue) claim the same about City.

PSG need to sell now to break even and did the same last summer. Also, their sponsorship deals are indeed seen as 'related party' transactions and are tested against the "fair market value" calculation.

Surely this is the issue of Fair Value. Any sponsorship deals that PSG get that are anywhere the value of a deal City get is inflated and therefore not fair value. The French league does not have the worldwide appeal of the Premier League, it does not get the revenue of the PL. This is where through ignorance or not, I do believe that PSG are treated differently. One could even argue that although the Mbappe deal wasn't illegal it was most certainly not in the spirit of the rules and most certainly PSG sticking two fingers up at UEFA. Had that been City it would not have been taken lightly.

 

[chaddblue]

I keep on hearing a decision is imminent, but still fuck all. Tomorrow afternoon maybe?, or maybe there is no decision, who fucking knows.

I read that following it being referred the process will now take months

 

[SilverFox2]

And hubris. These ****s masquerading as journalists are enjoying their perceived power to bring down whoever they choose. They'll find out very differently in the not too distant future.

Do you think the same direct approach is likely on individual members of uefa rather than totally aimed at the organisation?

 

[mosssideblue]

I read that following it being referred the process will now take months

i.e. the end of the transfer window :)

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Are we able to sue for reputational damage ?

 

[Newman Noggs]

Do you think the same direct approach is likely on individual members of uefa rather than totally aimed at the organisation?

Both

 

[93.20]

I see Miguel Delaney is City bashing big time in the Independent today. And he seems to have been on here quite a bit too. Not posting the link as it will boil your blood. Some good responses in the open comments section though.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I see Miguel Delaney is City bashing big time in the Independent today. And he seems to have been on here quite a bit too. Not posting the link as it will boil your blood. Some good responses in the open comments section though.

He’s Irish though, so praising anything or anyone in blue is obviously genetically impossible for him!

 

[Newman Noggs]

I have a feeling that our Club are building a portfolio of individual persons and their tweets or quotes that will allow them to be sued for libel.
Uefa is struggling for survival and those individuals hiding behind its name may find they are the recipient of legal process rather than the organisation they represent.

I would hope so. If you think about the oft-used phrase "financial doping" which trips so lightly off the tongue of so many, the word "doping" is used specifically because of its connotations of dishonesty and cheating.

In fact, if you look at what we were punished for, it wasn't anything to do with cheating but everything to do with failing to live within our means (at the time). The two are different things.

I should imagine that the club would be issuing warnings that the use of words or phrases implying dishonesty would give a cause of action both for the individual concerned and the media providing the platform for the use of such words or phrases.

I'm also intrigued by suggestions that the next apparent charge is about "misleading" investigators. There are various ways of "misleading" investigators. There is the unintentional omission of something that should have been disclosed, for example because it wasn't asked for, or "intentionally misleading" investigators by, for example, lying about something you were specifically asked about. Proving "intention" is the hardest part of any allegation relating to dishonesty.

The distinction is important because it goes to proportionality of punishment. A ban from the CL would only be justified for an allegation that the club intentionally misled the investigators. That's a very hard allegation to sustain.

And then we come to materiality. Was the "misleading" of the investigators material. Given we were punished anyway, it's difficult to see how it could be, especially from the leaked "evidence".

We don't have the evidence, of course, but neither do the media making damaging allegations. I'd imagine their cards are well marked.

 

[waspish]

If your working for one of these papers work your bollocks of writing a positive article about City and get not many clicks then you write an article that takes the piss out of us and has a bingo like article and get 10 times more clicks/hits thats why the majority of articles about city mainly have a negative headline and write up it appeases the history club supporters. I only click on positive articles and block the clowns.

 

[nmc]

I don’t know why the fans from other English clubs are applauding as we get dragged through the mire.... surely all English teams will be banned when one transgresses - there’s precedent for that. I look forward to all English teams getting a 5 year ban as a result of our (or can we blame Chelsea?) financial doping!

 

[nmc]

I would hope so. If you think about the oft-used phrase "financial doping" which trips so lightly off the tongue of so many, the word "doping" is used specifically because of its connotations of dishonesty and cheating.

In fact, if you look at what we were punished for, it wasn't anything to do with cheating but everything to do with failing to live within our means (at the time). The two are different things.

I should imagine that the club would be issuing warnings that the use of words or phrases implying dishonesty would give a cause of action both for the individual concerned and the media providing the platform for the use of such words or phrases.

I'm also intrigued by suggestions that the next apparent charge is about "misleading" investigators. There are various ways of "misleading" investigators. There is the unintentional omission of something that should have been disclosed, for example because it wasn't asked for, or "intentionally misleading" investigators by, for example, lying about something you were specifically asked about. Proving "intention" is the hardest part of any allegation relating to dishonesty.

The distinction is important because it goes to proportionality of punishment. A ban from the CL would only be justified for an allegation that the club intentionally misled the investigators. That's a very hard allegation to sustain.

And then we come to materiality. Was the "misleading" of the investigators material. Given we were punished anyway, it's difficult to see how it could be, especially from the leaked "evidence".

We don't have the evidence, of course, but neither do the media making damaging allegations. I'd imagine their cards are well marked.

I’d assumed UEFA were majoring on the misleading line simply because they have nothing to hit us with that’s objective and factual - hence the shift to subjectivity and bullshit. I am no doubt that UEFA are corrupt from floor to ceiling and we will relish dismantling their pathetic house of cards.