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.
Someone appears to have tried to piggyback that tweet with their own spin on the facts.


Not sure if this is correct or whether that would show we've done any wrong if it were true. Do they think City can just write "other income ;)" and not state where it came from? I sincerely doubt that.

Surely that's not correct, UEFA were already aware of those deals being related party and it's not like UEFA can't see what their value was each season.


The more of this that UEFA knew before the settlement the harder it is for any of UEFA's arguments to work. From what I can see, they disbelieved (or disagreed at best) with City's analysis (as they did with many other clubs), did their own calculations, showed City they had breached and decided to settle the matter with the agreement and a monitoring period/settlement regime. Not one article, journalist, source etc has yet identified what the City have actually been charged with or how it differed from matters covered in the settlement agreement and settlement regime.
 
Last edited:
The more of this that UEFA knew before the settlement the harder it is for any arguments to work. From what I can see, they disbelieved (or disagreed at best) with City's analysis (as they did with many other clubs), did their own calculations, showed City they had breached and decided to settle the matter with the agreement and a monitoring period/settlement regime. Not one article, journalist, source etc has yet identified what the City have actually been charged with or how it differed from matters covered in the settlement agreement and settlement regime.
I don't agree with that, the fact that they knew what was already declared as related party income, makes it easier for our arguments to work because we can dismiss half of the arguments in that tweet. They don't just take a club's word for it, we have a revenue and we show where it came from and it has to add up. There's no hiding millions extra being paid into the Abaar type deals I would have thought. Everything has to be shown to be coming from somewhere and they check for that surely? What I read was, we did overpay some of those deals but they spotted that immediately in the first review and all that was settled in 2014 thus nothing to do with the investigation or what City are accused of. City have stuck to the agreed value for those deals since then, as far as I know.

ADUG paying into Etihad would be a different matter(which I don't believe happened), but the value of Etihad deal would remain the same in the accounts. Unless I'm missing something.
 
Last edited:
Those examples I gave were to illustrate the deep rooted and quintessentially corrupt nature of UEFA and the consequent lack of a fair hearing and relates to my earlier contention that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the IC and the AC didn't read City's evidence in their defence because the case was pre-judged. They're eminently capable of anything as we saw, for example, with the underhand change in the application of Annex XI after City had submitted their accounts in 2014 which ensured City failed FFP.

I agree with what you say the IC at least is a disgrace - and I don't think you'd find anyone - fan, official or anyone else - who would trust anyone at UEFA as far as they could throw them BUT we can't prove that AC didn't consider our submissions or that they took into account the concerns CAS expressed. As projectriver said, we have to do better to prevail.
 
And all while their full financials remain hidden in the Cayman Islands where no one can scrutinise them properly.
In which case interested parties could drip feed money into the rags accounts to protect each others interests, not that I would suggest that has ever happened....... but.
 
I don't agree with that, the fact that they knew what was already declared as related party income, makes it easier for our arguments to work because we can dismiss half of the arguments in that tweet. They don't just take a club's word for it, we have a revenue and we show where it came from and it has to add up. There's no hiding millions extra being paid into the Abaar type deals I would have thought. Everything has to be shown to be coming from somewhere and they check for that surely? What I read was, we did overpay some of those deals but they spotted that immediately in the first review and all that was settled in 2014 . City have stuck to the agreed value for those deals since then, as far as I know.

ADUG paying into Etihad would be a different matter(which I don't believe happened), but the value of Etihad deal would remain the same in the accounts. Unless I'm missing something.

I've made my original reply clearer. I think we agree. I mean harder for UEFA not for City.
 
I agree with what you say the IC at least is a disgrace - and I don't think you'd find anyone - fan, official or anyone else - who would trust anyone at UEFA as far as they could throw them BUT we can't prove that AC didn't consider our submissions or that they took into account the concerns CAS expressed. As projectriver said, we have to do better to prevail.
And that's why we have enrolled a £20k per day lawyer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.