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

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

I think that would be a massive mistake. You're probably right.

I don't think the the club have a choice in the matter. As fans the club saying nothing is a necessity not a choice IMO.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Fair play to Klopp who has supported City's football.

Fuck Klopp. His club is as bent as a nine-bob note.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think that would be a massive mistake. You're probably right.

To clarify, a mistake to speak, or not to speak?
They've said they won't speak at the moment, haven't they?

 

[kaz7]

I think that would be a massive mistake. You're probably right.

We are not going to comment anymore,no company ever would

 

[nmc]

Rodney Marsh has just fallen into the Danny Mills category of ex city players.

Just... he’s been an utter prick for years.

 

[kaz7]

After his decent piece in the Daily Mail, Martin Samuel is on Sunday Supplement tomorrow along with Melissa Reddy from The Independent and Mark Ogden of ESPN

I'll give it 5 minutes at assess the tone.

5 mis of the dipper reddy and you would puke up your breakfast

 

[domalino]

To clarify, a mistake to speak, or not to speak?
They've said they won't speak at the moment, haven't they?

A mistake to not speak. I appreciate what @Ric is saying about commenting on ongoing legal matters but given this is a tribunal (ie no jury) and the clubs agreed to make their appeal documents from last November public, there must be something they can say without effecting the next appeal or future court cases. Something beyond "The attempt to tarnish the reputation of the club is clear and obvious" etc.

If they don't say anything, you don't come off as dignified or obeying the due process of courts, you look guilty and there's X number of radio hours and column inches to fill - if they're not talking about or discussing what we're saying, they'll be talking about what UEFA is leaking.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I think we have 100% broken the spirit of the law, and ADUG putting money through Etihad/Etisalat so they can afford to sponsor us is very clearly not what anyone thought of as Financial Fair Play. Frankly I don't give a shit about that, professional football allowed owners to invest for 130 years before Mansour arrived, and it will be allowed again when FFP is gone in <10 years.

However I still think the club could have operated within the rules as the are written and thus be "innocent" to that extent.

Also I think it's entirely possible we're guilty but UEFA can't touch us because of some procedural thing like the illegally gained emails being the only evidence or them being outside the 5 year window or the settlement agreement meaning they can't reprosecute.

I'm not convinced though...the club has gotten things wrong before and if I'm doubting them, then its no wonder no one outside the City fanbase is really thinking we have a case.

As the day has gone on, I've been more and more convinced that the club needs to make some sort of proper, detailed public statement, because staying silent for months (outside the aggressive reaction statement) is going to leave fans isolated and the media with nothing but the opposing view to air.

In a court of law won't uefa have to show a money trail from Mansour personally into City through sponsers? Even if true I doubt there is anything in our sponsers books that will show a trail or we wouldn't be going to war.

 

[cheekybids]

The person who was topping up the Etihad money mentioned in the hacked email was His Highness this is the leader of the UAE not Mansour

I think his brother but forgive if I’m wrong I’m not as knowledgeable as the Dipper & Rag fans.

 

[kaz7]

Fuck Klopp. His club is as bent as a nine-bob note.

And one of the main players driving things,the goofy twat is a liar

 

[kaz7]

A mistake to not speak. I appreciate what @Ric is saying about commenting on ongoing legal matters but given this is a tribunal (ie no jury) and the clubs agreed to make their appeal documents from last November public, there must be something they can say without effecting the next appeal or future court cases. Something beyond "The attempt to tarnish the reputation of the club is clear and obvious" etc.

If they don't say anything, you don't come off as dignified or obeying the due process of courts, you look guilty and there's X number of radio hours and column inches to fill - if they're not talking about or discussing what we're saying, they'll be talking about what UEFA is leaking.

That is very naive,one wrong word could ruin everything

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A mistake to not speak. I appreciate what @Ric is saying about commenting on ongoing legal matters but given this is a tribunal (ie no jury) and the clubs agreed to make their appeal documents from last November public, there must be something they can say without effecting the next appeal or future court cases. Something beyond "The attempt to tarnish the reputation of the club is clear and obvious" etc.

If they don't say anything, you don't come off as dignified or obeying the due process of courts, you look guilty and there's X number of radio hours and column inches to fill - if they're not talking about or discussing what we're saying, they'll be talking about what UEFA is leaking.

Thanks.
Not sure really, I don't think it will help one way or the other. Unless they use it specifically differentiate UEFA from the CFCB as those they think are at fault, I don't see what they can do beyond outline their case.

 

[the talisman]

In a court of law won't uefa have to show a money trail from Mansour personally into City through sponsers? Even if true I doubt there is anything in our sponsers books that will show a trail or we wouldn't be going to war.

Except CAS is not a court of law, it’s a sports tribunal that usually rules on doping cases.
I worry how impartial they will be in this case.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Yes, I think it’s probably a bit fanciful, and perhaps not really helpful, to think that we’re completely innocent here. There has undoubtedly been some creative accounting going on, but then find me a major corporation that doesn’t. Google, Amazon, Manchester fucking United, they’re all at it. It’s just absurd that we operate in perhaps the only industry in the world where it’s deemed more of a crime to invest in your company, rather than avoiding paying tax out of it. Mad world.

Spot on Ric,

We have done something here that perhaps we should not, which is where my initial conversation on if true the option of a slap on the wrist could have been the sensible one.

You are correct and truth of the matter is United might have done something wrong or not, it seems accepted they can hide there accounts. Still think those PIK loans the Glazers had one minute and then where suddenly paid of with no explanation happened at a very similar time to the restructure. If are accounts where hidden in such away I’m sure it would be seen very differently.

I have no issue with the club being creative and as you say it is common place the companies to do this.

Not sure how it will play out, but our season might end up more interesting off the field then it is on it.

So where does 'irrefutable evidence' and 'no wrong doing' sit in that equation then ?

 

[BLUEMATT23]

Not worried in the slightest.
The ban will be over turned.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Except CAS is not a court of law, it’s a sports tribunal that usually rules on doping cases.
I worry how impartial they will be in this case.

My bad I'm thinking more beyond CAS which I doubt will be the end given City's statement.

Although we can present whatever evidence is deemed to be relevant and supports our case at CAS such as sponsers books etc.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Except CAS is not a court of law, it’s a sports tribunal that usually rules on doping cases.
I worry how impartial they will be in this case.

The high court it goes too. Listen we know how this will play out. I would hazard a guess that uefa hope CAS will reduce the ban to 1 year and reduce the fine in the hope that we accept a lesser charge....

But this means we accept guilt. Our owners have persisted we are not guilty and have been hung out to dry

 

[domalino]

That is very naive,one wrong word could ruin everything

Oh well I certainly wouldn't want things to be ruined when they are going so well under the current strategy.

 

[the talisman]

Not worried in the slightest.
The ban will be over turned.

Let’s all hope so.
I’m giving it to some wankers if that happens :-)

 

[Ric]

So where does 'irrefutable evidence' and 'no wrong doing' sit in that equation then ?

Ask Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or Edward Woodward, and they too will claim irrefutable proof of no wrong doing from their companies either. That’s where it sits for me.