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.
SWP's back said:
Sorry mate but I disagree in both points. If City are convinced in their irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing, they won’t only be attacking UEFA’s procedural violations.

Secondly, that document, though leaked, if true, wouldn’t be needed. Etihad will have their own versions of it. Anything that shows the funds didn’t come from Mansour is all they need.
Click to expand...

City have been quite clear that they beleive they can win on the facts, not just procedure. "irrefutable evidence" etc.

If they can do that, they absolutely have to for the sake of the club's reputation. Winning on a procedural error or technicality will put us in Europe next year, but we'll still be the pariah club in the press and in the views of the ECA and that just leads to more pressure for these kind of investigations, so it does have a material impact.
 
@Prestwich_Blue I’ve just had a look at the initial Settlement Agreement(SA) and as I’m sure you know it covers the seasons from 2013/2014 up to and including 2015/2016

In UEFA’s statement on Friday they specify the penalty is for breaches from 2012-2016. Now given the Settlement Agreement and UEFA’s own 5 year limitation UEFA seem only able to investigate about 6 months worth of accounts(at best). Do I understand this correctly?

If so, how would UEFA go about reopening the 2014 SA? It would surely require a gross breach to even entertain the idea of reopening and overinflating sponsorship which allegedly happened during a period they already looked at seems pretty weak. But even if that is true, the punishment doesn’t really fit the ‘crime’. Unless they are accusing City of cooking the books for the best part of 5 years which, if true, then we would have bigger things to worry about than Sterling or Sane leaving - that would be an issue for the U.K. courts not UEFA’s imaginary one, surely?

Thanks in advance. But don’t be shy in calling me an idiot who’s got it all wrong....
 
Last edited:
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think we're in danger of letting David Conn monopolise our thoughts and we're also running the risk of attacking FFP in its entirety. City may well be prepared to do that in the courts before this business is finished but at the moment the priority is winning the appeal and I'd like comments on whether I have a clear view of the situation as it is.
1. CAS is not the place to question the legality of FFP
2. CAS will concern itself with process almost exclusively and the only question to be dealt with is whether City received a fair hearing before IC and AC. CAS will also need to be convinced that City have been treated in a manner which is consistent with clubs in other comparable cases.
3. City will argue that UEFA are trying to reopen mattres dealt with already in 2014 and it is not admissible to punish the club twice for the same deeds (City did not accept they had done anything wrong in 2014).
4 There were irregularities in the way the club was dealt with in 2014, notably the changing of dates on which player wages were included in the calculation of allowable deductions after the submission of our accounts.
5. The accusations made are founded on documents stolen from the club and quoted out of context and thus should not be considered. The clubs accounts are an accurate statement and have been accepted by UEFA.
6 The severity of the punishment handed down was justified in part by the alleged refusal of the club to cooperate with the inquiry and yet the club initially welcomed it. In fact the club submitted 200 documents as evidence, but the court did not give the club an opportunity to present the evidence and did not even read it.
7 The IC systematically breached its obligations to confidentiality and to act in good faith which undermined the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
8 The case involving City has not been dealt with in a manner consistent with the treatment of other clubs in similar cases. The case of PSG in particular is entirely different and illustrates the whimsical nature of UEFA's processes.

If I am wrong in any of this or there are any grounds for our appeal please post in with them.
Click to expand...

So do you think city will win the appeal?
 
SWP's back said:
Sorry mate but I disagree in both points. If City are convinced in their irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing, they won’t only be attacking UEFA’s procedural violations.

Secondly, that document, though leaked, if true, wouldn’t be needed. Etihad will have their own versions of it. Anything that shows the funds didn’t come from Mansour is all they need.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It will not be enough for City, and I would suggest more specifically Khaldoon, to have this quashed for procedural failings by UEFA. City will more importantly, and rightly so, want to exonerate themselves of any wrongdoing in relation to what UEFA are actually alleging. The secondary consequence of this would be the discredit that UEFA would hopefully suffer.
 
SWP's back said:
Sorry mate but I disagree in both points. If City are convinced in their irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing, they won’t only be attacking UEFA’s procedural violations.

Secondly, that document, though leaked, if true, wouldn’t be needed. Etihad will have their own versions of it. Anything that shows the funds didn’t come from Mansour is all they need.
Click to expand...

As PB has already stated CAS are not a court as such. They will only rule on procedural violations and make sure the punishments UEFA sanctioned fit the crime as such.

The best we can hope for at CAS is the case is thrown out due to UEFA not following its own process.

That is the reason City mentioned “CAS in the first instance” The fight to clear our name and show the irrefutable evidence will happen in the Swiss Courts
 
Bodicoteblue said:
Music to my ears.
Another thought that I had was that if they were so sure of a conviction and punishment for City, based on their ‘evidence’
then why send one of their message boys to try and negotiate a ‘way-out’ compromise?
When they realised that that tactic was a no-go, the next best option was to insinuate huge guilt, simply by announcing the largest possible punishment because to do so would imply serious levels of culpability, a ploy which they know will work (and has) simply because of the slavish loyalty of the media and the bone-headed tribalism of the average fans of other clubs.
If it were not for their own time-limits on cases, I’m convinced that UEFA would be more than happy to drag this out for years as long as no decision was ever reached thus allowing the insinuation of guilt to go unchallenged, with the commensurate damage this would cause to us, with no serious come-backs for them.
A foot-note for any dippers reading this thread, just be thankful that UEFA are taking an interest in the finances of the shirt sponsors of City and their sources of funding and not standard chartered and their income from rogue-states, criminal gangs and terrorists.
I’d pay good money to watch that enquiry!!
Click to expand...


Absolutely spot on!!

For those that don't know Standard Chartered were fined by the US authorities and then a 2nd time by the UK and US authorities a total of almost $3Billion for money laundering on behalf of ISIS. As Forbes magazine says:

"But for a bank, regulatory fines are simply a cost of doing business. If the anticipated profits exceed the likely costs, the bank will continue to break the rules. And this is exactly what SCB has done."
 
Blue Hefner said:
@Prestwich_Blue I’ve just had a look at the initial Settlement Agreement(SA) and as I’m sure you know it covers the seasons from 2013/2014 up to and including 2015/2016

I’m UEFA’s statement on Friday they specify the penalty is for breaches from 2012-2016. Now given the Settlement Agreement and UEFA’s own 5 year limitation UEFA seem only able to investigate about 6 months worth of accounts(at best). Do I understand this correctly?

If so, how would UEFA go about reopening the 2014 SA? It would surely require a gross breach to even entertain the idea of reopening and overinflating sponsorship which allegedly happened during a period they already looked at seems pretty weak. But even if that is true, the punishment doesn’t really fit the ‘crime’. Unless they are accusing City of cooking the books for the best part of 5 years which, if true, then we would have bigger things to worry about than Sterling or Sane leaving - that would be an issue for the U.K. courts not UEFA’s imaginary one, surely?

Thanks in advance. But don’t be shy in calling me an idiot who’s got it all wrong....
Click to expand...

I thought the claim was that CIty had effectively lied about the source of the money, not the amounts involved?
 
Newman Noggs said:
Mentally, I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst. The whole football edifice is so rotten it's going to come crashing down.

Win or lose, UEFA is finished, we're watching the dying throes of a grotesque money generating monster as it thrashes round trying to appease the cancerous clubs that will eventually kill it anyway.

The very worst that can happen is we never get back in the CL which, seeing as only Liverpool, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Bayern, Juventus, Madrid, Barcelona and, maybe, PSG can ever win it anyway will be no great loss.

And we get stripped of our titles? (Go on, let's run with this), United, Liverpool and Chelsea get a couple more each by default, to add to those they won every year anyway simply because they are richer than everyone else. And then one of them wins it forever more. Sooner rather than later that will be the end of the PL too.

Our support dwindles to its hard core 35k because we've been relegated to League 2 ? Well if anyone supports City because we win stuff, they should go mix with their red brethren anyway.

Our reputation is sullied ? Yeah, like Liverpool and Juventus with their rotten histories haven't recovered.

So the worst isn't bad at all and anything less than that and we're still laughing.
Click to expand...

Hahaha.....I know what you're saying and you're trying to make us all feel better, but that my friend thoroughly depressed me ;)
 
M18CTID said:
If we get this overturned at CAS, and destroy UEFA and their shitty cartel in the process, it could gain us an army of new fans!
Click to expand...
The Cartel are already working with FIFA to get that new Club World Cup thing going in case UEFA ever fucks io so badly they can’t continue
 
meltonblue said:
The doc isn’t substantial enough to prove that, I doubt Etihad would want that doc getting any more exposure than it already has too.
Click to expand...
That doc isn't really important.

The important thing is City being able to prove the funding didn't come from Mansour.

That doc is merely evidence that we have the ability to do so.
 
Didn’t I read somewhere on here recently with the Liverpool hacking issue, that we felt we had to rush through the Fernandinho and Navas deals in Summer 2013 and for more money than we wanted because we thought Liverpool may come in for the same players, or something to that effect?

So their hacking actually had ramifications regarding this particular issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top