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.
projectriver said:
These processes simply don't work that way. Even if they come to a different conclusion, they read whatever submissions we made.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that they followed their processes, and didn't cut significant corners in order to get the judgement through before the 5 year deadline expired.

Something at the AC level doesn't make sense. Either the club and Soriano are bullshitting or there's been a major flaw in the process because if the AC did their job as prescribed, we shouldn't be here, the "irrefutable proof" should have been aired and this thread shouldn't exist.
 
KS55 said:
Are we sure he doesn't deserve a pile on? Rabin is one of our best weapons. He knows his stuff and takes them on. A Blue who attacks him is, well, you decide.
Click to expand...
gettyimages-2014797.jpg


Who is he?
 
domalino said:
A more interesting question IMO is what liability do individuals have?

Yves Leterme is the 1 person the club have accused of inproper conduct. We know from the PSG case that as the head of the IC he has total power, and was able to summarily dismiss the objections of his colleagues without reason.

If he is the single person who has stopped the club from giving their evidence and made his ruling, then he is the single person responsible for all of the reputation damage done by his decision and his reaction to the accusation of leaking was the very definition of protesting too much.
Click to expand...
I expect CAS to say some interesting things about Leterme's conduct. They warned him in their previous judgement.
 
projectriver said:
These processes simply don't work that way. Even if they come to a different conclusion, they read whatever submissions we made.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure in view of the IC's indecent haste to cut the investigation short so as to just squeeze in the 5 year self imposed UEFA moratorium on re-opening old cases. City could of course have submitted their evidence fairly late in an attempted filibuster manoeuvre to drag the investigation over the 5 year limit but who could blame them if they did?
 
Whilst we're speculating, I"m interested in this newly-embraced and much-touted concept that the rules may be corrupt but we "signed up to them" so it doesn't matter.

Setting aside the idea that you can compete in football without CL money, I'd love to see the "contract" we "signed" up to. Presumably there is some sort of contractual obligation on UEFA to administer the competition and its processes fairly. Even if there isn"t, it would surely be implicit given the required trust between the parties.

Proven breach of that agreement by UEFA would be an interesting situation given that we know the size of the financial penalties UEFA would like to impose on us. And that's before you start on the other financial implications.
 
Nails said:
City_Rabin was jumped on by a blogger. A City blogger. It seems City blogger thinks he's a real journo now, so he insulted Rabin when Rabin, who had been tagged in the thread that involved a couple of hacks, pointed out one of the journo's hypocrisies. Rabin didn't want to be the focus of a blue-on-blue ruck, so he deactivated his account. Well done, City blogger.
Click to expand...

I was looking at the thread at the time, and to be fair to said ‘blogger’, who for the avoidance of doubt is an articulate and talented City writer, the point that he made (namely that Rabin piling in with a trademark expose on what one of the journalists the ‘blogger’ was trying to have a sensible debate with, had said previously, wasn’t really helpful in the circumstances) had some validity IMO. It would be disappointing if Rabin has closed his account as a result of the altercation. He really has no need to
 
laserblue said:
I'm not so sure in view of the IC's indecent haste to cut the investigation short so as to just squeeze in the 5 year self imposed UEFA moratorium on re-opening old cases. City could of course have submitted their evidence fairly late in an attempted filibuster manoeuvre to drag the investigation over the 5 year limit but who could blame them if they did?
Click to expand...
I think I read somewhere that we did submit our docs quite late on. Well, we had to get them together, so that's only to be expected. Uefa badly at fault trying to squeeze it in.
 
Delaney with another retarted article ..bashing Abu Dhabinot going to post here now ..


Citys PR are literally sleeping on the Job.
 
KS55 said:
I think I read somewhere that we did submit our docs quite late on. Well, we had to get them together, so that's only to be expected. Uefa badly at fault trying to squeeze it in.
Click to expand...

It also depends when we got the questions they required answers to . If that's an issue, CAS would look at the whole chronology to see whether any delay in submitting our dossier was reasonable.

Having been in this position several times, I've always found that Courts lean heavily towards allowing more generous time to those under investigation in order to demonstrate "fairness" of process.

I'm never confident of Court proceedings but I do know that being up against time limitations leads to haste which leads to mistakes and I hope that's the case here.
 
Newman Noggs said:
Whilst we're speculating, I"m interested in this newly-embraced and much-touted concept that the rules may be corrupt but we "signed up to them" so it doesn't matter.

Setting aside the idea that you can compete in football without CL money, I'd love to see the "contract" we "signed" up to. Presumably there is some sort of contractual obligation on UEFA to administer the competition and its processes fairly. Even if there isn"t, it would surely be implicit given the required trust between the parties.

Proven breach of that agreement by UEFA would be an interesting situation given that we know the size of the financial penalties UEFA would like to impose on us. And that's before you start on the other financial implications.
Click to expand...
Syed wrote in his first article on this subject that City agreed to the rules, so must abide by them, even if they disagreed with them. Ok in theory, but: 'Agreed'. .?
IIRC, G14 rejected Platini's rules and wrote their own, threatening to pull out of the CL if UEFA did not agree to their terms. The then President of REAL said "ffp is coming, the clubs want them....."
At this point only G14 had agreed to them and the rest of us had no opportunity to make our points.
UEFA then made it clear that clubs had to sign up to them in order to play in their competitions.
Hardly " Agreement".
It is clear to me that the control body should not also run the primary club competition in Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top