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

[Marvin]

Or maybe it's less that it's weird for Tariq and others to be unable to appreciate this basic but manifestly obvious point, and more the case that there's none so blind as those who have no wish to see.

A number of football journalists do not like the idea of the Emiratis in football so they focus on City's manouvres rather than UEFA's, and the context of the dispute, whilst others cynically just know what sells.

 

[petrusha]

A number of football journalists do not like the idea of the Emiratis in football so they focus on City's manouvres rather than UEFA's, and the context of the dispute, whilst others cynically just know what sells.

Yes. All hell would have broken loose yesterday had it emerged that the CAS had described an aspect of City's conduct in the current proceedings as "worrisome". Yet with the boot on the other foot, comment from sources who've previously been keen to cover this story in depth is, shall we say, limited.

I don't disagree with you about the reasons.

 

[Centurions]

If our registered auditors declared that Etihad were not a related party - I can’t see how UEFA can without opening up another conflict with our auditors whose credibility would be undermined by such an arbitrary judgement.

I might be misunderstanding you but we wouldn't have declared anything. I think you have to declare if it is a related party but as long as they're happy with the level of sponsorship then they won't even consider if it is or not. Related party only comes into it if they think the amounts are extreme as in the case of PSG.

 

[Saddleworth2]

It's the last of these that I find particularly interesting. Disclosure takes place for a number of reasons, mainly so that the defendant can see the evidence against it in full, thus ensuring a fair trial. But one reason is so that the Court can be sure that no documents have been created and backdated to suit an emerging argument. We were assured.that full dusclosure had taken place on 11th July but, over two weeks later, the "scope document" appeared.

A scoping document is important in any investigation because it is part of the investigation plan and sets out the parameters of the investigation. That, might include, for example, time period or particular documents. It not only ensures a focused investigation from the investigator's perspective but also, from an evidential point of view, ensures that the investigation isn't just a fishing exercise designed to dig up any dirt. It intrigues me that this wasn't produced until after we had been assured that we had full disclosure. I'm sure that the club will be seeking answers.

I would have thought that the late disclosure of the scope document was sufficient in itself to get any process disqualified. A bit of me thinks that is what the game is so we can be described as getting off on a technicality.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I would have thought that the late disclosure of the scope document was sufficient in itself to get any process disqualified. A bit of me thinks that is what the game is so we can be described as getting off on a technicality.

I'd be pissed off with a technicality there'll still be a big cloud over our good name, bit risky but I think I'd rather be found guilty then we can go for them with nothing to lose & be a proper party pooper.

 

[crazyg]

A number of football journalists do not like the idea of the Emiratis in football so they focus on City's manouvres rather than UEFA's, and the context of the dispute, whilst others cynically just know what sells.

Are these the same journalists who have no objections to the FA Cup being known as the Emirates Cup, or a (former) "Sky 4" team who play in Nowf Landan being sponsored by the same company?
Hang on. That club is owned by an American. Does that make a difference?

 

[lancs blue]

I would have thought that the late disclosure of the scope document was sufficient in itself to get any process disqualified. A bit of me thinks that is what the game is so we can be described as getting off on a technicality.

I'm no legal expert but I wouldn't describe failing to disclose pertinent evidence as a "technicality", malpractice would be closer to the mark.

 

[Dirty Harry]

The fact that the BBC seem to encapsulate one of the most extreme “holier than thou” cultures that sees them deflect anything approaching criticism suggests we will never know. I’ve made numerous complaints to the BBC over the years and have never received anything close to an admission of error or wrong doing or an apology. Even when they were caught lying over the “Bertie” headline a senior executive at the BBC wrote me a 2 page missive denying any wrongdoing “whatsoever” - the name Bertie really was plucked out of the air at random and not one of the BBCs 20 odd thousand employees were aware that the term Bertie was in anyway related to a character in a Man United fanzine ! Or the fact that it had become a term of derision. There’s a self righteous attitude at the BBC that will ultimately see them go up in smoke.... Maybe some of these bitter fuckers like Harris should spend sometime investigating how our national broadcaster employed and tolerated known pedophiles and sex pests for decades - and when the facts came to life equally passed it off as something they were wholly unaware of. Numerous people will tell you what a sexual predator Stuart Hall was at the BBC and how his behaviour was tolerated and excused. I for one won’t be subscribing to the BBC when the license fee is scraped... and hopefully the cost cutting measures will include Danny Murphy!

Couldn’t agree more my friend, I put it like that to avoid any debate with any apologists, too busy putting up a 14’ shed :-) , I’m seriously considering dumping my TV to avoid paying for another license, and avoid any doubt, I never watch or listen to anything BBC related at home .

 

[Kenward Garg]

If those pricks go behind a paywall- it’ll be fucking lonely.

Ha! Tumbleweeds like you see in the westerns.

 

[nmc]

I might be misunderstanding you but we wouldn't have declared anything. I think you have to declare if it is a related party but as long as they're happy with the level of sponsorship then they won't even consider if it is or not. Related party only comes into it if they think the amounts are extreme as in the case of PSG.

Sorry I meant our auditors would have considered whether Etihad was a related party when they signed off our accounts. UEFA second guessing that assessment would put UEFA on a collision course with both us and our auditors. I can’t imagine PSGs auditors being happy being second guessed by some upstarts at UEFA and that may have contributed to the case being shoved under the carpet.