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.
DrBlueBob said:
I have a question for the lawyerly types. If I have a television for example and someone steals said television I am now without a television, (let's assume for the purposes of this that I only had one tv to start with).
If my emails are hacked and "stolen" I am still in full possession of my emails, (ergo no material loss?). Is there any legal difference in this scenario and if so will it impact in any way on the current Der Spiegel affair?
Click to expand...
My guess would be the crime isn't the fact you're without a TV, but someone stole it. If someone steals emails, even though you still have them, the act of stealing them is the crime.
 
Manc in London said:
Based on our press releases, unless I have missed something, we are unhappy with the procedural fairness, not FFP. I think the club are not that bothered about FFP, as such. We are now in a financial position where we can be very competitive and not have to worry about compliance with FFP.

Can we even be sure that UEFA want to punish us? Maybe this is playing out to a beneficial endgame for both ourselves and UEFA, giving the impression to some influential clubs - maybe they are the only parties who want to see us punished - that the process has been exhausted.
Click to expand...
They are investigating us for ‘procedural anomalies’- we are accusing them of the very same.
Totally agree about your view on a mutually suitable agreement.
UEFA can shrug their shoulders and say ‘we did our best.... but technicalities etc. meant no prosecution’.
Plus the added bonus for fans of rags, dippers and the rabid press is that they can point to this and say ‘well..you got away with it on a technicality’ and we must still be guilty of something.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
They are investigating us for ‘procedural anomalies’- we are accusing them of the very same.
Totally agree about your view on a mutually suitable agreement.
UEFA can shrug their shoulders and say ‘we did our best.... but technicalities etc. meant no prosecution’.
Plus the added bonus for fans of rags, dippers and the rabid press is that they can point to this and say ‘well..you got away with it on a technicality’ and we must still be guilty of something.
Click to expand...

I've said before that I could see that being the best option for UEFA - it's difficult to see any other good way out, assuming that there is no bloody glove of City's guilt.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I've said before that I could see that being the best option for UEFA - it's difficult to see any other good way out, assuming that there is no bloody glove of City's guilt.
Click to expand...
Highly probable.
It would suit a lot of people. They could still call us guilty without anyone knowing exactly what we’re guilty of or having to prove it.
That way the narrative can continue.

I’d rather the Sheik took them on rather than accept that.

It doesn’t matter that Liverpool avoided punishment for breaches they were guilty of close to the same time, purely on a technicality.
That technicality being they didn’t qualify so weren’t in the competition.

No matter. That would never come into the story. The propaganda machine could keep rolling with the narrative of what City are guilty of shifting with the needs of the cartel’s puppets.
 
King KdB of Belgium said:
What worries me is what the two guys who are working for UEFA, 1 is a former Liverpool director MR Rick Parry the other one is a former Man. Utd. director MR David Gill. I just wonder how much they are trying to get us banned from European comps. This so that it will be easier for them to get a champions league spot, at our expense. I hope that the lawyers which we no doubt have on call are all ready looking into this.

I was speaking to a friend of mine who worked for the police. We were discussing about us being looked for FFP breaches. What he said to me is what I already knew. That if this went to a court off law, there would be no way that UEFA would be able to use the hacked e-mails, to prove their point about us breaking FFP, as all the e-mails would be thrown out of court and couldn't be given as evidence, as this would be considered as fruit of the poisonous tree as they say in the law courts. We would also have a very good case to charge them with theft, even though they didn't do it themselves.
Click to expand...

Gill is still on the board at United 2 million a year.
 
King KdB of Belgium said:
What worries me is what the two guys who are working for UEFA, 1 is a former Liverpool director MR Rick Parry the other one is a former Man. Utd. director MR David Gill. I just wonder how much they are trying to get us banned from European comps. This so that it will be easier for them to get a champions league spot, at our expense. I hope that the lawyers which we no doubt have on call are all ready looking into this.

I was speaking to a friend of mine who worked for the police. We were discussing about us being looked for FFP breaches. What he said to me is what I already knew. That if this went to a court off law, there would be no way that UEFA would be able to use the hacked e-mails, to prove their point about us breaking FFP, as all the e-mails would be thrown out of court and couldn't be given as evidence, as this would be considered as fruit of the poisonous tree as they say in the law courts. We would also have a very good case to charge them with theft, even though they didn't do it themselves.
Click to expand...
I’m no lawyer but I listened to a podcast by a City fan who was. He said that if we took UEFA to court we’d both have to produce relevant documents as part of the process. Think it’s called ‘discovery’, where both sides can see the evidence the other has & that would involve any emails relating to the sponsorships & other financial stuff.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Highly probable.
It would suit a lot of people. They could still call us guilty without anyone knowing exactly what we’re guilty of or having to prove it.
That way the narrative can continue.

I’d rather the Sheik took them on rather than accept that.

It doesn’t matter that Liverpool avoided punishment for breaches they were guilty of close to the same time, purely on a technicality.
That technicality being they didn’t qualify so weren’t in the competition.

No matter. That would never come into the story. The propaganda machine could keep rolling with the narrative of what City are guilty of shifting with the needs of the cartel’s puppets.
Click to expand...

Ideally, I agree, clearance is better.

However, I think it will just be regurgitated ad nauseam that there were investigations, and a fail in 2014, rather than the charges being unproven.
 
Canyouseethesky said:
My understanding of it is they don't need to use any of it, the club is not being and can't be re-tried for FFP. We are be being charged with lying essentially and they don't need emails for that. All they have done is ask questions of the club based on some media reports and decided they weren't happy with the answers.It's their competition, their rules so they can decide who gets to play and who does not.

This is were it gets messy and probably the reason the club sound so confident is there doesn't appear to be set rules as such about lying, even if they don't believe the club (which they clearly don't) then its unclear what they can actually do. I'm probably in a minority here in having sympathy for UEFA, on one side they have a club saying we done nothing wrong but on the other side they have probably 10 traditional European power houses saying they need to made an example of them to maintain the status quo. It's easy to say they should ignore them but these club's have the power to end UEFA, we could the them in knots for 20 years but we don't have the power on our own to end the organisation. As bullish as everyone on here is the part that concerns me most was the line in the review about using facts or not, you wouldn't mention not using facts unless you were worried that's what they will do.
Click to expand...
You have "sympathy for UEFA"?
Fcuks sake.
Assuming you're not trolling, you may be right that we will be charged with lying and not violation of FFP but to be clear this is your 'understanding' and not fact. Your first paragraph gives the impression that it is the latter (fact) as opposed to the former ( understanding).
If the charge is lying then UEFA will need evidence,facts or a significant body of circumstantial evidence to support this. It is not sufficient for UEFA to arrive at a guilty judgement just because that's what they suspect and they're the bosses. CAS would overturn the charge if it was arrived at on this basis.
 
DrBlueBob said:
Maybe if I'm quick I could buy it back at a local hostelry.
Click to expand...

When I got burgled the police told me to go to Cash Convertors - they said there's was a significant chance I'd be able to buy my own stuff back! I did ask them why they didn't go and arrest those involved in the crime... they said they didn't have time. I just claimed on my insurance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top