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.
City's appeal has not been "lost" the CAS has ruled it "inadmissible" - that is, City cannot appeal that the procedure followed by the IC was flawed until the AC has reached its verdict. I would be surprised if City's lawyers hadn't foreseen this outcome, so why appeal in the first place? The clue is in the standard caution when an arrest is made - you are warned that you should "not remain silent about something you later rely on in your defence". City were making it clear they are outraged by the procedure followed and will challenge any verdict we do not accept on these grounds and others. If UEFA gives no satisfaction the appeal to CAS will be made and will be admissible.

This does not, most certainly, mean that yesterday's news is wrong. It seems hard to believe the timing of both is coincidental and it could mean that negotiations between City and UEFA have shown that City's perceived threats of tying UEFA up in court for years if necessary are not hot air but grow out of a deeply held sense of injustice. A CL ban or fine may have been ruled out but a verdict and "punishment" (if any) have not been reached. I suspect City's legal team are in close contact with UEFA because we would far prefer a swift exoneration to a long legal battle. I suspect UEFA are furious about any failings in procedure at the IC (how are you today Mr P?).
At last a more than sensible approach as always, from you BHR.
I hope this will now stop many Mooners from fearing the worst when effectively nothing has changed.
Well said that man AS ALWAYS !!
 
So they want to ban us for a season? Fine then we will just play every Saturday next season and be fresh every week. Oh hang on, VAR don't like us so it could prove tricky.
Whatever happens we're getting fucked by someone.
 
If I remember that incident correctly, the ref was right in his decision
I think it was David Silva who's movement had taken him off the pitch. The throw in was taken quickly and the ball thrown into the path of Silva who re entered the field of play
The law is something about gaining an advantage from a dead ball by a player being off the field of play, and this is why ref's have to wave a player back onto the pitch if they've been off for treatment
My memory tells me something different in that he just didn't want the quick throw in being taken for whatever reason as we took it again from exactly the same place. Silva going off the pitch if that was the case in the way you describe wouldn't have affected the throw in being taken to him. In any case I don't recall that being the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.