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

[Prestwich_Blue]

I didn't hear that to be fair. Not sure how he would know that unless he's been tipped off. I know we're all second guessing here but there's never been an inking that it's about back-dated payments, plus didn't PSG back-date that huge sponsorship deal of theirs when they first announced it?

In the Der Spiegel articles they talked about us having to make up a shortfall on 2013 due to the cost of sacking Mancini & his coaches. At that time we were still under the impression that we could scrape in under the rules in Annex XI covering certain wages paid in 2012. So we asked if we could bring forward payments due from the AD sponsors and we did.

UEFA then changed their rules about how that should be calculated and we couldn't use that provision anymore. Had we known that at the time then we wouldn't have needed to do that.

 

[sir baconface]

So because his father is from from the Indian sub peninsula, he can't be biased towards people from the middle east?

So because his father is from from the Indian sub peninsula, he can't be biased towards people from the middle east?

Not sure if you two realise @jamesha was responding to the assertion that Syed was a “white middle class man”.

 

[BringBackSwales]

What do you mean?

Responding to a post that said that they said our appeal “was not without merit”. Hope that clarifies it for you

 

[Stockton Heath Blue]

Yes, your P45 if you’ve been reading it at work.

Quiet day at the coalface. Plus, I'm not bad at multi-tasking.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Responding to a post that said that they said our appeal “was not without merit”. Hope that clarifies it for you

It doesn’t, as you said you weren’t sure why they would even be commenting, which is an odd thing to say unless you haven’t been following the situation leading up to UEFA’s announcement.

If you haven't, then fair enough.

 

[BluechesterCity]

I think that's an old story and last time I checked (the court documents are online somewhere) none of the charges relate to City so it's also inaccurate. It's probably a freelance trying to cash in on the back of the City story by recycling this angle. No doubt the idiots in the UK tabloids will just re-publish it as fresh news without checking though. Mind you most of them have ignored the Pinto dimension up to now because it doesn't help their anti-City narrative. It has been all over the Portugese and US media for a few weeks.

Thanks, Bobby. Sorry I didn't look closer - I thought the writer meant Pinto was in court today. I think you're right about them just jumping on the bandwagon!

 

[cityzen81]

Responding to a post that said that they said our appeal “was not without merit”. Hope that clarifies it for you

it wasn't the appeal they said "was not without merit" that was the accusation of the leaks from within UEFA/the media

 

[ctid1894]

I am unsure myself as well tbh.

No idea how this irrefutable evidence ended up not being considered by UEFA.

It is clearly going to be part of our defense though,there is no doubt about that.

Whilst UEFA allege we failed to cooperate with the investigation.

Maybe UEFA thew the "Failed to cooperate" out there to cover the fact they refused to accept it.

UEFA might say we never offered further irrefutable evidence.Nothing would surprise me with those corrupt bastards,

Something is amiss............

Only City can prove whether the alleged emails exist, UEFA can't, not without City's help, hence the "failed to cooperate" stance.

If they do exist, we would be signing our own guilty plea by cooperating with the investigation. UEFA in my mind have used this as an admission of guilt. It's probably also the reason behind this "settlement offer", otherwise why bother if you can prove our guilt beyond doubt.

If they don't exist and/or were manipulated by Pinto (hence the reason he's currently sat looking at four walls on extortion and fraud charges), UEFA are absolutely fucked, hence their refusal to show the evidence before the CAS appeal.

 

[johnnytapia]

Probably best to stick to criticisms of what he says, rather than his grammar?

Grammar (and manners) maketh man.

 

[CityPar]

I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was part of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Link here: http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Go to the link saying "major legal submission" and it'll open a PDF. On page 14 it says:

So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.

You might want to let our lawyers know. We need all the help we can get! :o)