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.
I am not looking forward to waking up and having to sift through 453 pages haha.

If someone can give a summary when we hit page 1575 or so at around 8am I'd be grateful.
 
A long war ahead. A battle was lost today. It remains to be seen whether the UEFA sanction was a real blow or an empty gesture.
 
But the end result is the same no ?

It matters not if someone shoots you in the Heart,or stabs you in the Heart.

The end result is the same.
Hmm, the process is not the same then the result is not the same.

PSG came in with a big sign saying QTA is 200 M a year. UEFA said no, it is worth 100. Then no, it is worth 50. Same for all the Qatari contracts and that has been adjusted in FFP accounting. PSG had to balance the accounts by selling players. Which means at the end of the day, they complied with the break even rule.

The last attempt of that portuguese judge overseeing the adjudicatory chamber was to further decrease it, after the last transfer window had passed, despite the reached agreement. This would have effectively put us out of the break even rule and made us a target of sanctions. However, UEFA didn't respect their own procedures and CAS had to rule in our favour, making the last ruling (the one stating we were in full compliance of UEFA rules) definitive.

Now, in City case, they must be arguing that the leaks are showing your owner is the one pumping the money through those sponsors. Which means they consider that those sponsors were inflated by the said channeled money. That would make you not compliant with the break even requirement when they substract that sum. On top of that, they are accusing you of lying or not truthfully reporting your financial situation which is a requirement for the UEFA Licensing and FFP with those alleged backdoor deals.
 
Hmm, the process is not the same then the result is not the same.

PSG came in with a big sign saying QTA is 200 M a year. UEFA said no, it is worth 100. Then no, it is worth 50. Same for all the Qatari contracts and that has been adjusted in FFP accounting. PSG had to balance the accounts by selling players. Which means at the end of the day, they complied with the break even rule.

The last attempt of that portuguese judge overseeing the adjudicatory chamber was to further decrease it, after the last transfer window had passed, despite the reached agreement. This would have effectively put us out of the break even rule and made us a target of sanctions. However, UEFA didn't respect their own procedures and CAS had to rule in our favour, making the last ruling (the one stating we were in full compliance of UEFA rules) definitive.

Now, in City case, they must be arguing that the leaks are showing your owner is the one pumping the money through those sponsors. Which means they consider that those sponsors were inflated by the said channeled money. That would make you not compliant with the break even requirement when they substract that sum. On top of that, they are accusing you of lying or not truthfully reporting your financial situation which is a requirement for the UEFA Licensing and FFP with those alleged backdoor deals.

Well done for pointing out the allegations.

Now go and have a look at what the last fine included and how the goalposts have been moved since.

It's ground that has been covered already.
 
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.