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

[richards30]

This is going all the way!!

 

[Ric]

Manchester City have written to all their staff to declare of the club's battle with UEFA: "We will prevail." The memo states that City will 'continue to reject' the charges against them and adds that they will appeal to the CAS at the earliest opportunity. [@MikeKeegan_DM]

Presumably the "earliest opportunity" would have been Friday night?

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

Not sure it will be that simple.

If you haven't already, read this that Ric posted

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

Seems like he's saying we have a strong case for CAS, however if they rule against us then we have little to no hope in the courts.

Basically it's CAS ruling in our favour or nothing.

The most important part of that article is the paragraph at the bottom.

The author is a more than 20 year English qualified lawyer, current public company Chief Executive Officer, former General Counsel, former financial adviser to the Board of Manchester City and an experienced litigator including in matters of complex accounting. He knows little or nothing about CAS jurisprudence or the Swiss Civil Code and freely admits he could be completely wrong on all of the above given the scarcity of public documents relating to these matters.

 

[kaz7]

Presumably the "earliest opportunity" would have been Friday night?

I'm guessing he has just got hold of this and the appeal is probably in already

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

David Conn on the guardian football weekly podcast after taking his magic mushrooms:

Manchester City have NOT been given this penalty because they breached FFP rules in the sense they made too much of a loss or their finances weren't what they should have bee, which obviously is what FFP is all about trying to make clubs live within their means and not make too much of a loss, but this is not what City have been found guilty.......

The issue is they were deceitful and not truthful when they said it was Etihad and not Sheikh Mansour the owner who was clearly paying £57mil.
It was a breach of trust which is always a worse offence than the offence itself...an example (but not a direct paralllel) is it is an offence if you get pulled for speeding you get 3 points on your licence and you might get a fine..but if you lie and you were driving the car when in fact your partner was driving the car well that becomes a very serious offence and you go to prison...so City are not being done for a breach of FFP they are being for a serious breach of trust"

 

[deano ou812]

Manchester City have written to all their staff to declare of the club's battle with UEFA: "We will prevail." The memo states that City will 'continue to reject' the charges against them and adds that they will appeal to the CAS at the earliest opportunity. [@MikeKeegan_DM]

Ferran Soriano, in a memo to all #ManCity staff: "It is important to recognise that this is not the end. There is more to come. We are confident that with a fair and independent hearing, we will prevail." [@MikeKeegan_DM]

Manchester City staff have been instructed by the club to not post anything on social media regarding the ongoing situation. A number of meetings have been held with staff at which they were reassured about the future and urged not to panic.

My only worry in them quotes is the “fair and independent hearing “ I know it’s CAS but I just can’t trust any organisation or tribunal when it involves city getting a fair hearing ..

 

[117 M34]

Isn't the whole issue around sheikh mansour funding the sponsorship that it needs to be fair market value? I. E. That sponsorships were not inflated to pay lore than they should have done.

Surely some simple benchmarking with other deals from other clubs will show if this is the case

 

[bumbleblue]

David Conn on the guardian football weekly podcast after taking his magic mushrooms:

Manchester City have NOT been given this penalty because they breached FFP rules in the sense they made too much of a loss or their finances weren't what they should have bee, which obviously is what FFP is all about trying to make clubs live within their means and not make too much of a loss, but this is not what City have been found guilty.......

The issue is they were deceitful and not truthful when they said it was Etihad and not Sheikh Mansour the owner who was clearly paying £57mil.
It was a breach of trust which is always a worse offence than the offence itself...an example (but not a direct paralllel) is it is an offence if you get pulled for speeding you get 3 points on your licence and you might get a fine..but if you lie and you were driving the car when in fact your partner was driving the car well that becomes a very serious offence and you go to prison...so City are not being done for a breach of FFP they are being for a serious breach of trust"

god this sanctimonious twat gets right on my tits! Breach of trust ?? you turncoat Judas.

 

[RobinHood]

The most important part of that article is the paragraph at the bottom.

The author is a more than 20 year English qualified lawyer, current public company Chief Executive Officer, former General Counsel, former financial adviser to the Board of Manchester City and an experienced litigator including in matters of complex accounting. He knows little or nothing about CAS jurisprudence or the Swiss Civil Code and freely admits he could be completely wrong on all of the above given the scarcity of public documents relating to these matters.

Read your post before the article. Saves me a bit of time now. Thanks.

 

[kaz7]

My only worry in them quotes is the “fair and independent hearing “ I know it’s CAS but I just can’t trust any organisation or tribunal when it involves city getting a fair hearing ..

Yes i did note that bit,we are relying heavily on it being truley independent and who knows with all the corruption we are witnessing