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 actually agree with what Marvin said earlier. Some of the rhetoric should be toned down a bit. Journalists are taking the more extreme quotes and making generalisations of our entire fanbase on the basis of it. There are plenty of ways to criticise certain journalists and publications without resorting to veiled threats and overly abusive language. Don't give them the ammunition they desperately crave. As others on here have shown, it's far more effective to highlight their ignorance of the subject at hand, and at times rank hypocrisy, in a considered manner rather than just venting anger at them (as tempting as that is at times).
 
Dazed and confused here.
The other day I felt reasonably optimistic that the funding of the sponsorship argument was boxed off in our favour in that the 'extra' Etihad money came from a non related party the Abu Dhabi Executive Council (EC).
Now it appears the money may have come from the EC originally but was channelled through ADUG.
ADUG are not a post office and if the money came from ADUG it came from ADUG.
ADUG ( unlike the EC) ARE a related party and that would mean we have broken FFP rules?
 
Cornish_Blue said:
If the press are so desperate for a story to ‘invade a fan forum’ rather than investigate the actual facts, it goes to show how pathetic they are.
Click to expand...

We'll have to up our game, maybe drop in a few quotes from The Iliad like the fat fool does...

To all the lickspittle scribblers...

“Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another.”
 
Len Rum said:
Dazed and confused here.
The other day I felt reasonably optimistic that the funding of the sponsorship argument was boxed off in our favour in that the 'extra' Etihad money came from a non related party the Abu Dhabi Executive Council (EC).
Now it appears the money may have come from the EC originally but was channelled through ADUG.
ADUG are not a post office and if the money came from ADUG it came from ADUG.
ADUG ( unlike the EC) ARE a related party and that would mean we have broken FFP rules?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't is my understanding.
 
Manchester City are unlikely to face a points deduction in the Premier League after UEFA ban. And they will not be booted out of it. No matter how much some might want to see that.

Professor Simon Chadwick, director at the Centre for the Eurasian Sport Industry:
“Many people believe at this point Manchester City are on the back foot but I could argue UEFA is more exposed in all of this.”

“In essence UEFA has to try to win this because, if it doesn’t win or is undermined in any way, then its position on Financial Fair Play begins to unravel…FFP is scuppered.”

“However, they are not taking on Wigan, they are taking on Asian governments, US tech investors and some of the smartest, most-talented people in football. It is transnational power versus localised governance. This is not Man City it is CFG.”

“You have the Abu Dhabi government invested into it, you have the Chinese government invested into it, Silver Lake invested into it, and they are operating franchises across seven or eight countries including China and India.” (SPORT)
 
Len Rum said:
Dazed and confused here.
The other day I felt reasonably optimistic that the funding of the sponsorship argument was boxed off in our favour in that the 'extra' Etihad money came from a non related party the Abu Dhabi Executive Council (EC).
Now it appears the money may have come from the EC originally but was channelled through ADUG.
ADUG are not a post office and if the money came from ADUG it came from ADUG.
ADUG ( unlike the EC) ARE a related party and that would mean we have broken FFP rules?
Click to expand...

It's the Father Ted Rule, the money was only resting.
 
Len Rum said:
Dazed and confused here.
The other day I felt reasonably optimistic that the funding of the sponsorship argument was boxed off in our favour in that the 'extra' Etihad money came from a non related party the Abu Dhabi Executive Council (EC).
Now it appears the money may have come from the EC originally but was channelled through ADUG.
ADUG are not a post office and if the money came from ADUG it came from ADUG.
ADUG ( unlike the EC) ARE a related party and that would mean we have broken FFP rules?
Click to expand...
I've not read the latest 30-40 pages so perhaps I've missed something, but having sponsorship from a related party isn't against the rules anyway. They have to announce it as such, but as long as it's market value then it's not an issue anyway? Can't see why we'd disguise it if that's right.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
The demonising of our fans writing some (admittedly hyperbolic on many occasions) support for their club on an internet forum is an easy target for the Guardian and their ilk to take a shot at.

I don't recall any such demonisation of Liverpool fans thinking it was reasonable to destroy property and actively endanger the players and staff of a rival club by bricking a bus as it drove into their stadium to fulfil a sporting fixture.

But given the general preciousness and over-sensitivity of Liverpool fans, it would have taken an act of supreme courage on the part of these same journalists to speak out on that one - something which we all know they lack. One thing's for sure - the level of vitriol and bile you would have seen on equivalent Liverpool forums would have eclipsed our comparatively modest offerings over the last few days had Jonathan Liew or Nick Harris had the courage to call them out for their behaviour.

Apparently it's ok to vandalise and destroy property and endanger people's safety - but to vent on the internet is a crime so grave it needs calling out in the national media!

For a bit of balance, they could have a look on some of our rival's forums for their responses to the recent news about our club. The level of hatred they would see on there, amid calls for us to be relegated to League Two and all our players to be banned from football for life for complicity, whilst our owners should be locked up for having the temerity to defend their interests and not just accept this excessive punishment cap in hand, would contextualise the picture and highlight that all you're seeing on Bluemoon is very typical football tribalism.

But no.

Dual standards at its best. But then why are we surprised?
Click to expand...
After the attack on City's players at Anfield the Guardian's Sachin Nakrani wrote about the atmosphere that day and celebrated it in his article:

"Wild, furious, almost feral: from the Kop this felt like a collective triumph". https://www.dumptheguardian.com/foo...sphere-liverpool-fans-anfield-manchester-city

I think City fans can handle criticism. I accept that the press and some football fans regard City as the enemy but I find it difficult to understand that some City fans are still willing to contribute to these publications. The football authorities have declared war on Manchester City. City fans need a military police force to ensure discipline in the ranks! Joking (mostly).
 
Marvin said:
General comment for users:

Press are crawling all over this forum and your comments may appear in newspapers, or on twitter etc. Be aware.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then let some of them reply or post on here or even better let's arrange a meet up with them before the match tomorrow night and talk about the last 4 days.

But you know what it won't happen because they are shithouse keyboard warriors hiding behind their laptops.
 
Prater70 said:
Can anyone please confirm what should be our first question to CAS and that is dates. It appears that Uefa took it to the final day for the five year investigation date, so would that be from the date of settlement. There appears to be different views on this and should it have been from the date of the breach which could have put us outside of the date of the five years. In that case would we be treated similar to PSG with their missed deadline.
Click to expand...
That is going to be of City’s arguments (that they can’t investigate breaches which allegedly occurred more than 5 years ago).

The other argument which looks in our favour is the actual 2014 settlement with UEFA, which covered the period that they have relied upon to ban us.
 
Ric said:
I actually agree with what Marvin said earlier. Some of the rhetoric should be toned down a bit. Journalists are taking the more extreme quotes and making generalisations of our entire fanbase on the basis of it. There are plenty of ways to criticise certain journalists and publications without resorting to veiled threats and overly abusive language. Don't give them the ammunition they desperately crave. As others on here have shown, it's far more effective to highlight their ignorance of the subject at hand, and at times rank hypocrisy, in a considered manner rather than just venting anger at them (as tempting as that is at times).
Click to expand...
Do we still have a code of conduct for the site Ric?
I was trying to find it to remind myself what the rules were but couldn't locate it!
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
The demonising of our fans writing some (admittedly hyperbolic on many occasions) support for their club on an internet forum is an easy target for the Guardian and their ilk to take a shot at.

I don't recall any such demonisation of Liverpool fans thinking it was reasonable to destroy property and actively endanger the players and staff of a rival club by bricking a bus as it drove into their stadium to fulfil a sporting fixture.

But given the general preciousness and over-sensitivity of Liverpool fans, it would have taken an act of supreme courage on the part of these same journalists to speak out on that one - something which we all know they lack. One thing's for sure - the level of vitriol and bile you would have seen on equivalent Liverpool forums would have eclipsed our comparatively modest offerings over the last few days had Jonathan Liew or Nick Harris had the courage to call them out for their behaviour.

Apparently it's ok to vandalise and destroy property and endanger people's safety - but to vent on the internet is a crime so grave it needs calling out in the national media!

For a bit of balance, they could have a look on some of our rival's forums for their responses to the recent news about our club. The level of hatred they would see on there, amid calls for us to be relegated to League Two and all our players to be banned from football for life for complicity, whilst our owners should be locked up for having the temerity to defend their interests and not just accept this excessive punishment cap in hand, would contextualise the picture and highlight that all you're seeing on Bluemoon is very typical football tribalism.

But no.

Dual standards at its best. But then why are we surprised?
Click to expand...

I agree with nearly all of that but over the last year I think we have truly moved into triple standards.

The original isteree cartel, everyone else, and we seem to firmly entrenched in our own category where literally everything is acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top