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.
petrusha said:
He turned up to interview Franny for a north west business publication and said that the experience left him knowing that he'd been "talking to a businessman", as if it was the most pejorative label that could possibly be attached to an interviewee. What disgraceful temerity from Franny. Someone arrives to interview you for a business magazine and you talk about business. Conn's description of the episode sounds laughably juvenile.



He's knowledgeable but not to the degree a lot of people think. He has nothing like the level of insight that someone such as Stefan from the 93:20 pod does, but then Stefan is CEO of a public company and also their senior in-house lawyer, with a track record of having advised the boards of top football clubs in his past. Conn qualified as a solicitor but left the profession immediately after doing so. As someone who's supervised newly qualified solicitors and has been one, I can tell you that their ability to navigate complex legal issues such as this is really not all that. He's probably the most knowledgeable current British journalist about business issues in sport, but very much in an 'in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King' kind of way.

I gave my view of this latest piece by Conn in this thread last night, and at quite some length. It's possible he may be right, but if he is, it seems a senseless move from City's point of view. Yet if he's made any attempt to discern why City may be more confident of their case than he is, or what arguments we may put forward that distinguish the case from the precedent he refers to in his article, there's absolutely no sign of it. He may well have asked for a view from a sports law expert before writing, but the problem with that is that to get the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. I don't think I can be confident that he has.

More generally, Conn has shifted away from his usual subject matter when started out, which had a focus on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game. Then, he wrote for The Independent and produced two excellent books. In those days, I thought he was very good - and sometimes better than that. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as a self-appointed conscience of modern football. Beyond some half-baked fan ownership nonsense, never does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.

Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.

All these faults were fully evident in Richer Than God, which I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Like so many of his articles, the book merely served as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.

So sorry, Marvin. You admire Conn if you want to. But put me down in the 'not a fan' camp.
Click to expand...
There all kinds of people who I disagree with, but whose professionalism and integrity I respect. I am more comfortable with criticising the argument than the person.
 
You can back Conns position as an intelligent informed articulate journalist City fan as much as you like.
I neither have to agree with you or believe your opinion of what his intent is in some of his pieces. I neither like their tone or what I perceive as a lack of balance in the reporting of their subject matter. I've had a belly full of the same recently from other so called journalists who don't profess to be City fans and clearly aren't. My opinion on both is the same.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I give no credence whatsoever to arguments that City are "putting shots across UEFA's bows" or trying any other clever tactics to gain a short term objective. My opinion is that City are deadly serious and have been since the DS "revelations". The clubs position from the start has been that these revelations amount to a concerted campaign to damage the club's reputation. No explanation of who exactly is behind this campaign has been provided and we do not know if the club has hard evidence of this, but it seems clear to me that the club and its lawyers see UEFA's proceedings as playing an important role in adding to damage already done. Firstly the case (whatever it is) against City appears to rely heavily on evidence which a court of law may rule inadmissible. The "leaks" from the investigatory committee have given the distinct impression that City are guilty of withholding important information from UEFA about our accounts, that City were thus guilty of cheating and that they would be unable to compete in the CL for at least one season. This was all leaked when the club claim the investigatory committee was in possession of evidence from the club which it didn't even consider before sending the case to the adjudicatory chamber. The adjudicatory commission will consider what to do while City are to make decisions about contracts, transfers etc etc etc while everyone has been led to believe that we will not be playing in the CL next season.

This whole business is reputational damage by rumour, inuendo and suggestion and City MUST have the right of appeal to end a process so flawed (and so abused) that it is certainly damaging the interests of our club. As Petrusha pointed out last night, this is a massive difference from the AC Milan case.
Click to expand...
Got to say you post post good stuff.,. I aways enjoy your thoughts.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I give no credence whatsoever to arguments that City are "putting shots across UEFA's bows" or trying any other clever tactics to gain a short term objective. My opinion is that City are deadly serious and have been since the DS "revelations". The clubs position from the start has been that these revelations amount to a concerted campaign to damage the club's reputation. No explanation of who exactly is behind this campaign has been provided and we do not know if the club has hard evidence of this, but it seems clear to me that the club and its lawyers see UEFA's proceedings as playing an important role in adding to damage already done. Firstly the case (whatever it is) against City appears to rely heavily on evidence which a court of law may rule inadmissible. The "leaks" from the investigatory committee have given the distinct impression that City are guilty of withholding important information from UEFA about our accounts, that City were thus guilty of cheating and that they would be unable to compete in the CL for at least one season. This was all leaked when the club claim the investigatory committee was in possession of evidence from the club which it didn't even consider before sending the case to the adjudicatory chamber. The adjudicatory commission will consider what to do while City are to make decisions about contracts, transfers etc etc etc while everyone has been led to believe that we will not be playing in the CL next season.

This whole business is reputational damage by rumour, inuendo and suggestion and City MUST have the right of appeal to end a process so flawed (and so abused) that it is certainly damaging the interests of our club. As Petrusha pointed out last night, this is a massive difference from the AC Milan case.
Click to expand...
Fantastic post as ever. There was a telling line in the club's statement following the DS 'revelations' that described the attempts to damage our reputation as "clear and organised"
This current trial by media and kangaroo court is a mere sideshow in the long-term aim of reputational damage.
 
Marvin said:
There all kinds of people who I disagree with, but whose professionalism and integrity I respect. I am more comfortable with criticising the argument than the person.
Click to expand...

The thing is they have no professionalism and to associate Conn and many other journalists with the word integrity is absolutely laughable.

Conn and others are in it for pure click bait.
One of the few real journalists like Martin Samuel who will report City actually fairly and with no bias, even when I disagree with what he has written I at least know it’s his genuine view.
 
Conn has a couple of fans on this thread but clearly the vast majority can't stand this arse licking toady.

I've been thinking of why he is a self-proclaimed City fan but seemingly hates every aspect of Manchester City. Partly I think he is pandering to his left / liberal readership on The Guardian who hate perceived big business (especially one he can label state run) but also I reckon he is trying to ingratiate himself with supporters of the recently deposed 'big' clubs as there are so many of them. Therefore he presents himself as a City fan they can appreciate...happy to support the club winning fuck all, cups for cock-ups and no threat to their clubs. In short, the devious Quisling has decided it will be better for his career and earn him more money by showing his loathing for a successful Manchester City.
 
Last edited:
Ardwick Green Blue said:
Conn has a couple of fans on this thread but clearly the vast majority can't stand this arse licking toady.

I've been thinking of why he is a self-proclaimed City fan but seemingly hates every aspect of Manchester City. Partly I think he is pandering to his left / liberal readership on The Guardian who hate perceived big business but also I reckon he is trying to ingratiate himself with supporters of the recently deposed 'big' clubs as there are so many of them. Therefore he presents himself as a City fan they can appreciate...happy to support the club winning fuck all, cups for cock-ups and no threat to their clubs. In short, the devious Quisling has decided it will be better for his career and earn him more money by showing his loathing for a successful Manchester City.
Click to expand...
I must admit that it has taken time for me to get used to our success as a football team.
Of course our owner saw financial opportunity then delivered a masterclass in choosing people who could carry out a business plan for his investment. This part I am still in awe of.
I still feel a little uneasy about our football success, my dads charactor building virtue of being a City supporter has changed significantly.
 
SilverFox2 said:
I must admit that it has taken time for me to get used to our success as a football team.
Of course our owner saw financial opportunity then delivered a masterclass in choosing people who could carry out a business plan for his investment. This part I am still in awe of.
I still feel a little uneasy about our football success, my dads charactor building virtue of being a City supporter has changed significantly.
Click to expand...

I have taken to success and winning like a duck to water.
 
SilverFox2 said:
There lies the difference.
I cannot transpose my defiant I'm a City supporter stance with its bring it on I've heard it all before attitude to our current expectation of a 5 _ 0 victory every game.
Wouldn't do for us all to be the same would it?
Click to expand...

I grew up in rag central mate, surrounded by them. Pretty much all my mates and so on are rags. Believe me mate, after the best part of 30 years taking stick, it was very easy to adapt for me.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
I grew up in rag central mate, surrounded by them. Pretty much all my mates and so on are rags. Believe me mate, after the best part of 30 years taking stick, it was very easy to adapt for me.
Click to expand...
As you say we are different.
Only been a City supporter for 70+ years so perhaps I am too set in my ways eh?
 
SilverFox2 said:
There lies the difference.
I cannot transpose my defiant I'm a City supporter stance with its bring it on I've heard it all before attitude to our current expectation of a 5 _ 0 victory every game.
Wouldn't do for us all to be the same would it?
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t life be boring if everyone had exactly the same opinions?

I’ve watched us when we were shite starting with 1962-63 season as a regular match goer, through the great Mercer & Allison years, decades of being shite afterwards and now hoovering up trophies.

I know which era I prefer :)
 
this is not going to end good for uefa and they have jumped on the bandwagon of the other clubs who hate us because of the money we have over them, and what they (uefa) have done to manchester city by dragging our name through the mud over old news and leaks from a hacker that they believe to be true is ridiculous, and no court in the land would touch this case and it would be laughed out of court ????

how can you punish somebody (manchester city owners) for running their football in the right way ?? and with zero debt and let the so call big clubs play with ridiculous debts which they have no intention of clearing any day soon ??, some of the so called big clubs ??? are into the tune of £500 million in debt and spending willy nilly because they are members and friends of uefa ?? truly shocking that they are tarnishing the good name of manchester city with other bad owners ?? just look at what they have provided in 10 years of investing in manchester city ?? and a club that now if the owners walked away tomorrow manchester city would still be a very rich club and debt free and would be in very good shape for the future ???

its shocking that uefa and their board members are getting away with murder and dare manchester city question FFP and the rules ?? how can clubs under the uefa FFP rules be aloud to have such high debts and not be punished ?? how can that be financial fair play ?? why are clubs with big debt not answerable to FFP ? clearly being a board member at uefa gives you the power to make it disappear

just read the the rules and not laugh out loud
https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/pro...-licensing-and-financial-fair-play/index.html

funny that the rules changed in 2009 wonder why ????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top