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.
Scoobz1 said:
I would have thought that a highly paid CEO of the caliber we have should have been able to keep any conversation on brief with a less than aggressive (or even favourable) journalist ... especially as he will have have to answer much tougher questions from UEFA with even bigger implications.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We needed absolute editorial control over Ferran's interview because this is a case where one of our big arguments has been that the process has been compromised by the opposing party leaking information into the public domain. We therefore need to be absolutely sure that our lawyers are absolutely satisfied with every single word that comes out of MCFC on this topic.

Even one word out of place could allow the opposing party to argue that we've also made information public that compromises to put their case across. Anyone, including a well-paid CEO, could make such a minor slip. Remember, expensive lawyers aren't solely our preserve. UEFA might well go into the CAS prpoceedings a QC on a daily retainer of ten grand, and such people are viciously adept at twisting even the most apparently anodyne of words in a non-controlled interview. Yes, Ferran will have to face questioning from such a person in due course and maybe he'll slip up when he does even though I'm sure he'll be very well coached. But there's no point in taking the risk of handing them bullets now to fire at us later.

So yes, you're right purely from a PR point of view. But you completely ignore the legal imperatives at play, which in these circumstances dictate that we take absolutely no chances in terms of editorial control over Ferran's interview. With respect, you seem to favour deriving the maximum PR benefit at the expense of sound legal strategy and it's not an opinion I can get on board with.
 
Another thing about the content struck me. When Soriano emphasised how there are many people in UEFA doing very good work for football and it is the FFP panel we have a problem with, could he be telling them what Khaldoon alluded to. We hear everything. Maybe we have a few moles of our own.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking about the dilemma that might follow if City win their appeal with CAS as I travelled to last nights game. Obviously, CFG want their good reputation restored but if they drag UEFA through the courts they could end up destroying them, which provides ‘The Cartel’ with their endgame which allows them to set up their super league (I forget the actual name it has been given) and on that basis, they will simply reform in a different guise.

If the charge/ban is withdrawn by UEFA - as has been suggested will happen by another poster (apologies for being unable to say who - it’s hard to keep up with the number of pages in this topic!), then rather than pursue the matter legally, City could insist that UEFA issue a statement completely exonerating CFG from any wrong doing, together with an unconditional apology for the error of the accusations and any damage this has caused to CFG’s reputation. Indeed, as recompense for such damage they could offer to pay us the €30m they had fined us!

As with any organisation where employees are culpable of gross misconduct and are therefore dismissed, the main protagonists behind the slur against City will no longer be allowed any influence in EUFA and suitable replacements will be appointed - one of which, will be a representative for our club!

It’s wishful thinking I know, but it passed the time whilst we were stuck in the gridlocked traffic!
 
MOD, can we start a new thread on this whole banned allegation thing so it easier to follow and catch up on all the updates, this thread is almost 2,000 pages long.

Thank you.
 
Marvin said:
The bulish stance from Soriano should be completely dismissed. This is prepared and carefully thought out discussion. What else would you expect him to say other than we are innocent and utterly confident.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Chief Executive talking in such unequivocal terms, rather than an anonymised club statement, can be completely dismissed.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I don't think the Chief Executive talking in such unequivocal terms, rather than an anonymised club statement, can be completely dismissed.
Click to expand...
I do.

City are going to court. I don't care who you are and what the case is. The defendant always expresses total vehemence in his case. The only interesting aspect were things he didn't need to say such as the clear distinction drawn between UEFA as a whole and elements in UEFA who are hostile to City.
 
Academica said:
Has anybody ever checked this web site out, the amout of corruption going on in the game is amazing most of it never reported in this country.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/
Click on the match fixing tab.
Click to expand...

not amazing at all. It’s extremely hard to persuade sports journalists that the sport they cover is corrupt when they’ve all got vested interests in it not being.
 
jitsubluedan said:
Another thing about the content struck me. When Soriano emphasised how there are many people in UEFA doing very good work for football and it is the FFP panel we have a problem with, could he be telling them what Khaldoon alluded to. We hear everything. Maybe we have a few moles of our own.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the dilemma that might follow if City win their appeal with CAS as I travelled to last nights game. Obviously, CFG want their good reputation restored but if they drag UEFA through the courts they could end up destroying them, which provides ‘The Cartel’ with their endgame which allows them to set up their super league (I forget the actual name it has been given) and on that basis, they will simply reform in a different guise.

If the charge/ban is withdrawn by UEFA - as has been suggested will happen by another poster (apologies for being unable to say who - it’s hard to keep up with the number of pages in this topic!), then rather than pursue the matter legally, City could insist that UEFA issue a statement completely exonerating CFG from any wrong doing, together with an unconditional apology for the error of the accusations and any damage this has caused to CFG’s reputation. Indeed, as recompense for such damage they could offer to pay us the €30m they had fined us!

As with any organisation where employees are culpable of gross misconduct and are therefore dismissed, the main protagonists behind the slur against City will no longer be allowed any influence in EUFA and suitable replacements will be appointed - one of which, will be a representative for our club!

It’s wishful thinking I know, but it passed the time whilst we were stuck in the gridlocked traffic![/QUOTE]
The moves to reshape football are already underway and the cracks were already there. They get wider. We need to be successful in the Court and successful on the pitch to make it very difficult for City to be marginalised.
 
ancoats said:
chelsea went to CAS but still had a transfer ban for 2 windows in place ?? only after the first window closed uefa was made to reduce the ban to one

uefa don't want city in the champions next season and mark my words city will not be in the champions league next season
Click to expand...
Wrong as per UEFAs own statement.
 
Marvin said:
Soriano stressed that City were not anti-UEFA but were unhappy with the conduct of the UEFA Investigatory Chamber.

It seems tome that the AC chamber must have ignored City's evidence that the sponsorship agreements were in order. It worries me that CAS will do likewise. There is a lot of prejudice against City's Arab ownership. I think the job the liberal press has done on Man City has meant that it is difficult for City to find a fair trial.

I can understand that the UEFA Investigatory Chamber was deeply hostile but I find it difficult to see how an independent Adjudicatory Chamber discounted City's evidence. They've put a biguous and out of context emails over hard evidence which must include documents the like of which PB and David Conn discussed both of whom concluded that the UAE state covered the Etihad Airways sponsorship, and not Sheikh Mansour just as most City fans have maintained since reading the email hacks.. And if Conn, a hostile opponent thunks that, I struggle to see how the Adjudicatory Chamber reached the conclusion they did. Why should CAS look differently on our irrefutable body of evidence? I realise that there is a procedural angle as well. It is the procedural angle that possibly gives us the best hope because I am not sure that CAS will view things that differently than the UEFA AC. Why should they? They are drawn from the same group of people.

If prominent fascists. or Islamists were to defend itself in a commercial dispute, would they receive a fair trial? I doubt it. That's the problem, City have been characterised as state-owned cheats for years and years.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the chamber only listens to evidence given by the UEFA prosecutor and is only allowed to judge the case solely on what he provides. By all accounts we provided a 200 page document in our defence, to this day it remains unopened. It's beyond me why the process doesn't have a representative for the prosecution and the defence but my understanding is it doesn't, it doesn't take a huge leap of faith (given the setup) that we were found guilty.

I thing CAS will only look at the procedural aspect of the case, they will not look at all as to whether the verdict was correct. I'm not sure if CAS use the same group of people as UEFA but even if they do we get to pick one and CAS get to pick one, this gives us a fighting chance of the case being looked at by a more sympathetic group.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I don't think the Chief Executive talking in such unequivocal terms, rather than an anonymised club statement, can be completely dismissed.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with this. It's almost unknown for any CEO to speak in quite such bullish terms, because he's gone quite some way beyond the outward show of confidence that's usual in business in comparable situations.

It's hard to see why he'd do so unless he (and our legal advisers) fully believe what he's said. If City don't end up with what can be universally seen as a convincing win at the end of the process, then this interview is going to come back to haunt him in a major way. He and the lawyers must know this, so the fact he's gone ahead anyway is very significant IMO.
 
Marvin said:
I do.

City are going to court. I don't care who you are and what the case is. The defendant always expresses total vehemence in his case. The only interesting aspect were things he didn't need to say such as the clear distinction drawn between UEFA as a whole and elements in UEFA who are hostile to City.
Click to expand...
That worries me a little because I’m of the opinion that could be an indication of a possible agreement somewhere down the line with UEFA. Personally, I’d rather we fight this to the end and if after a proper, legal, transparent process has been followed City are guilty then ‘fair dos’, let’s accept our punishment whatever that may be. If however City are proved innocent then UEFA will be shown to be corrupt and may well collapse, ending their cosy relationships. If we do a deal we become part of football governance’s problem, part of an elite who don’t give a stuff about ambition etc. PSG, CFC and others have taken a path of cosying up - we should fight this to the end, whatever the cost to UEFA. Our reputation is in the gutter already, so if we do a deal at any point the abuse heading our way will increase significantly because we will be perceived as ‘buying a place at the top table’ as well as buying success and, presumably accused of bribing UEFA to avoid a fight. All or nothing for me if we want football to be fair, transparent and open to all.
 
Rob Hawthorne on commentary at the start of the second half last night.

"At a time when it is Manchester City's spending that is under scrutiny, it is Rodri their record buy that have given them the lead"
It's not our spending that is under scrutiny it's our income! Rodri was bought long after the alleged offence took place and at a time we were posting profits far beyond what is expected by FFP.

"it's been a strange maybe even strained atmosphere here, not purely down to the European ban........"
I don't know about you but the (POTENTIAL) ban didn't affect my attitude towards the game last night?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top