Really disappointing from sane if that's true....ok u don't want to stay.... atleast the club should get the deserved transfer fees
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Really disappointing from sane if that's true....ok u don't want to stay.... atleast the club should get the deserved transfer fees
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I can't see why it's obvious at all, I'd have thought it would be in UEFA's interest to hold fire until the CAS decision is revealed. After all if they announce a ban and then CAS come out and say the investigation was seriously flawed they'd going to look even more stupid. And of course if they do announce a ban then we'd immediately appeal against it (I presume the appeal is time limited) which would put another case in front of CAS.
This is pure click bait by The Scum, I've no doubt it's correct that UEFA can continue but I just can't see them doing it.
You may be right but the reason I said it was obvious is that UEFA are now in a position where they can't back down. City have publically accused them of being biased and essentially being influenced by outside forces (our commercial rivals) I believe City's strong attack suggests strongly that Khaldoon knows that UEFA has already made its decison to ban us and that's why this has been leaked to the UK media from the investigating committee.
If UEFA was an honest organisation then it would be logical to hold fire but their officials are corrupt.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Well if his family are in on it thats sane gone for 30/40m less than he is worth or he will go for nowt in 2 years.
Shit or get off the pot time for Leroy, as far as City will be concerned.
If he continues to bluff running down his contract, I wouldn't be surprised for City to call it and keep him at least another 12 months to spite him and Bayern.
Sometimes it really is about principle rather than the cash.
Especially so, when next summer we can threaten to keep him another 12 months or throw it out to the highest bidder that isn't Bayern or another club in England.
SiMCFC
Well-Known Member
I'm resigned to us getting a ban now, personally don't give a rats as the competition is shite imo but looking at the bigger picture the club and players will be gutted, will also cost us over a 100 million realistically along with the player unrest as a lot will have clauses relating to champions (lol) league participation, so all in all it is one big pain in the arse, why any fan would want us to compete in the future after the way they have fucked us I will never know.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
You may be right but the reason I said it was obvious is that UEFA are now in a position where they can't back down. City have publically accused them of being biased and essentially being influenced by outside forces (our commercial rivals) I believe City's strong attack suggests strongly that Khaldoon knows that UEFA has already made its decison to ban us and that's why this has been leaked to the UK media from the investigating committee.
If UEFA was an honest organisation then it would be logical to hold fire but their officials are corrupt.
When did they do that?
They've said they were unsurprised by the confidentiality failings, but biassed? I don't recall that.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Well if his family are in on it thats sane gone for 30/40m less than he is worth or he will go for nowt in 2 years.
What source does the family being involved in this come from?
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
A ban would be disastrous for players like Spanish Dave who would have dearly loved to have won it.
citytilllidie
Well-Known Member
Some journos are wanting to smell blood in the water and are simply chumming it to keep the narrative going when nothing is happening during the summer football months.
It had already been established this was more a marker by City, rather than a fillabuster.
As for Lipton, he wrote two months ago a back page lead entitled 'Ban City', which resulted in the club getting angry and essentially writing the Sun's inside spread follow-up the very next day.
Lipton insisted we would be banned by FIFA within 12 days for the illegal signing of underage players.
Whilst I expect that to happen (probably for Jan and next summer windows), it is clear his timelines are bollocks.
There is no illusion from City, this is a three-pronged attack to damage us both reputationally, and to hamstring us for a year or so for others to catch-up.
I find it very interesting Bayern have been keeping their powder dry in making an official bid for Sane.
They are being briefed by their pals at Uefa at what might be coming down the pipe while Leroy is on holiday and think they can kick us in the bollocks with a low ball offer.
Fucking Sane's family are in on it.
They are being briefed by their pals at Uefa at what might be coming down the pipe while Leroy is on holiday and think they can kick us in the bollocks with a low ball offer.
Fucking Sane's family are in on it
I keep reading from various present/ex-Bayern people, that they are waiting for a sign from Sane that he wants to go to Bavaria before they will make an offer.
I know it doesn't appear to matter much these days but are there no restrictions anymore for this tapping up?
He's on a contract here for the next two years with a pay rise on the table from City, so he's in the box seat.
Why are his family in on it?
doobyedoobye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 5,498
Interesting that both our German players are yet to extend..
Shit or get off the pot time for Leroy, as far as City will be concerned.
If he continues to bluff running down his contract, I wouldn't be surprised for City to call it and keep him at least another 12 months to spite him and Bayern.
Sometimes it really is about principle rather than the cash.
Especially so, when next summer we can threaten to keep him another 12 months or throw it out to the highest bidder that isn't Bayern or another club in England.
Yeah maybe but bottom line we aint going to get the market rate for sane or we fcuk him up for 2 years but history shows you we won do that. It will be sold for 70/80m this summer or we carry on as we are with sane contributing to our team and then leaving for nowt! One thing for certain seems he wont sign a new contract.
A ban would be disastrous for players like Spanish Dave who would have dearly loved to have won it.
Doubt it will impact him, tbh. Any ban would likely be for the season after next, and he'll leave next summer.
flb
Well-Known Member
Some journos are wanting to smell blood in the water and are simply chumming it to keep the narrative going when nothing is happening during the summer football months.
It had already been established this was more a marker by City, rather than a fillabuster.
As for Lipton, he wrote two months ago a back page lead entitled 'Ban City', which resulted in the club getting angry and essentially writing the Sun's inside spread follow-up the very next day.
Lipton insisted we would be banned by FIFA within 12 days for the illegal signing of underage players.
Whilst I expect that to happen (probably for Jan and next summer windows), it is clear his timelines are bollocks.
There is no illusion from City, this is a three-pronged attack to damage us both reputationally, and to hamstring us for a year or so for others to catch-up.
I find it very interesting Bayern have been keeping their powder dry in making an official bid for Sane.
They are being briefed by their pals at Uefa at what might be coming down the pipe while Leroy is on holiday and think they can kick us in the bollocks with a low ball offer.
Fucking Sane's family are in on it.
Is this ban threat having an impact on our incoming signings mate?
Not seen an update from you on the transfer forum for a while?
Yeah maybe but bottom line we aint going to get the market rate for sane or we fcuk him up for 2 years but history shows you we won do that. It will be sold for 70/80m this summer or we carry on as we are with sane contributing to our team and then leaving for nowt! One thing for certain seems he wont sign a new contract.
Can't see that , reportedly he is "only" on 65k a week, he could sign an extension for a minimum of double that.
I can't see him loosing out on that much cash over 2 years.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
In our reply to the New York Times leak City said:When did they do that?
They've said they were unsurprised by the confidentiality failings, but biassed? I don't recall that.
“The New York Times report citing ‘people familiar with the case’ is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.
“Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.”
I interpret this as City essentially saying that the investigating committee is acting in bad faith. We are not just accusing them of being incompetent or even unfair. The key phrase is "Or both." We are not just denying the accusations. We are suggesting intentional bias. The words were carefully drawn up by lawyers. This narrative backs up our initial strongly-worded press release when the probe was launched and what Khaldoon said later in his end of season interview. We have given up on UEFA and that's why we went straight to CAS.
Can't see that , reportedly he is "only" on 65k a week, he could sign an extension for a minimum of double that.
I can't see him loosing out on that much cash over 2 years.
A contract has been on the table for him to sign for the last 18 months seems he is happy on his 60k week because if he had signed 18 months ago he would have earned around an extra 4/5m.
I am sure City would give him near 100K week pay rise, 2 years that's near 10M plus bonus's.A contract has been on the table for him to sign for the last 18 months seems he is happy on his 60k week because if he had signed 18 months ago he would have earned around an extra 4/5m.
That some risk not to take, any footballer is one injury away from retirement, is he or his mother going to take that risk?
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
In our reply to the New York Times leak City said:
“The New York Times report citing ‘people familiar with the case’ is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.
“Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.”
I interpret this as City essentially saying that the investigating committee is acting in bad faith. We are not just accusing them of being incompetent or even unfair. The key phrase is "Or both." We are not just denying the accusations. We are suggesting intentional bias. The words were carefully drawn up by lawyers. This narrative backs up our initial strongly-worded press release when the probe was launched and what Khaldoon said later in his end of season interview. We have given up on UEFA and that's why we went straight to CAS.
Thanks. I hadn't read it as you did.
I don't think that strongly suggests much other that they are irritated that somewhere in the process there is a breach of confidentiality. I don't think it overtly refers to rivals or committee, I think it refers the media as being intent on damage.
I don't think there is any implication that the IC are biassed in their action - any such implication would have been far more obvious, I think. However, I also think it would have been unwise to say it publically, and thus they wouldn't have.
I think most accept that there is pressure on UEFA to investigate and charge if they can find a justifiable reason; I don't think that makes the IC corrupted - instead, I'd put that down to referring to the pressure to have the investigation started at the outset, and to do something by the date. I'm not finding the right words now for clarity, but I think there's a difference between having the outcome specifically directed, and direction to try having an outcome (which would need hitting the statutory date).
citytilllidie
Well-Known Member
The incumbent head of UEFA, Alexander Ceferin, stated in December that there was 'a concrete case' against Manchester City, and that they will 'come down hard on them, if found guilty by the AC'.
That being more than 6 months ago, why the delay?
I'm presuming that with the notice City sent to CAS, the UEFA mob have decided that they had better look at all of the documents before proceeding with the lynching.
That being more than 6 months ago, why the delay?
I'm presuming that with the notice City sent to CAS, the UEFA mob have decided that they had better look at all of the documents before proceeding with the lynching.
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,363
I’m not clicking. Is he brewing shit again ?
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
The incumbent head of UEFA, Alexander Ceferin, stated in December that there was 'a concrete case' against Manchester City, and that they will 'come down hard on them, if found guilty by the AC'.
That being more than 6 months ago, why the delay?
I'm presuming that with the notice City sent to CAS, the UEFA mob have decided that they had better look at all of the documents before proceeding with the lynching.
I think that 'concrete case' was a bad translation of "specific case". He put no timeframe on it because (a) he's not stupid and (b) the IC would take their own view of it and decide.
Ceferin did not imply that this was a cast iron case.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.