UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Father Paul]

Reading all the whispers & nudge nudges on this thread reminded me of this from a couple of years ago.

I post this with no malice ....

Some of the comments on here are fanciful and lacking in any real substance. We are still in the Shit and a lot of work is needed to get out of the mire.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

It has been reported that clubs have an agreement with uefa that neither can claim damages against the other.

i wouldn't think damages is what the club is after, more a swift resolution.

Either way, plenty of time to request a suspension, once the adjudicators are selected.

We have already sought damages against uefa.

 

[Coatigan]

We have already sought damages against uefa.

Have we? did we get anything?

(serious questions, both, not being wide, honestly don't remember reading about it)

edit: just found the articles. seems more of a mismatch headline, as the article itself does not say that, nor does it attribute the right quotes to the right bodies (i.e confusing letreme with cas for example). so i don't fully believe it, but i get your point though.

My point was more that, in not seeking to suspend the ban, id guess their priority is a quick result, rather than the prospect of damages, for wrongly missing out on a season of champs league football.

 

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

That comment means nothing to me. Could you explain it please?

 

[Saddleworth2]

Can you catch COVID-19 from reading this thread?

Only if someone sneezes on their laptop whilst posting.

 

[cheekybids]

Know what I mean

that’s exactly how I feel I’ve come in with another 200 pages added, tried to read last 10 & it’s all “nudge nudge say no more”

can someone say what’s in their mind & pug “allegedly” at the end.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Have we? did we get anything?

(serious questions, both, not being wide, honestly don't remember reading about it)

Yep it came out after cas.

 

[Coatigan]

Yep it came out after cas.

Edited my post simultaneously, yes remembered after posting.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Have we? did we get anything?

(serious questions, both, not being wide, honestly don't remember reading about it)

edit: just found the articles. seems more of a mismatch headline, as the article itself does not say that, nor does it attribute the right quotes to the right bodies (i.e confusing letreme with cas for example). so i don't fully believe it, but i get your point though.

My point was more that, in not seeking to suspend the ban, id guess their priority is a quick result, rather than the prospect of damages, for wrongly missing out on a season of champs league football.

It has been reported by multiple outlets, The Times, BBC etc. It is very vague though, no meat on the bones.

Btw I agree with your reasons about not seeking to suspend any ban. Time is of the essence.

 

[Gordyola]

We have already sought damages against uefa.

Have we? did we get anything?

(serious questions, both, not being wide, honestly don't remember reading about it)

edit: just found the articles. seems more of a mismatch headline, as the article itself does not say that, nor does it attribute the right quotes to the right bodies (i.e confusing letreme with cas for example). so i don't fully believe it, but i get your point though.

My point was more that, in not seeking to suspend the ban, id guess their priority is a quick result, rather than the prospect of damages, for wrongly missing out on a season of champs league football.

City sought damages at the first CAS hearing claiming the leaks by UEFA ,allegedly, had damaged the club’s reputation
This from the CAS verdict page 35 https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

Claims For Damages
129. As noted above, a claim for damages and a request for “an order that UEFA undertakes a full investigation into the sources of the Leaks in order to identify and take disciplinary measures against the identified sources, and takes full, appropriate remedial measures to ensure that strict confidentiality of both any process that may progress before the AC and of this arbitration” cannot be pursued solely, i.e. without an appeal against a decision, in an Appeal Arbitration Proceeding. The correct forum to pursue such a claim – absent any plurality of claims including an appeal against a decision – is the Ordinary Arbitration Proceeding. Thus, in view of the findings above, also the claim for damages must be rejected as inadmissible.

 

[Blue Mist]

If it helps I am In The Know (ITK) The problem is I am Not Sure What I Know (NSWIK) further I do not understand what I know (IDNUWIK)

 

[Alaricmc]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Have to say I very much like your reasoned and very eloquent response Alaricmc. Thanks for sharing.

 

[The Colonel]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

I considered writing something similar but didn’t find the time and I don’t think that I could have put it so eloquently and succinctly. I too used to read it and it’s a shame when I think back to the days of Frank Keating et al.

 

[Alaricmc]

Thanks, guys.

 

[KS55]

I really hope the smoking gun doesn't turn out to be a water pistol.

Tottenham have a spud gun.

Gets coat.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Being a Manchester City fan and reading The Guardian is the definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[chesterbells]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Excellent work regardless pal

 

[KS55]

Being a Manchester City fan and reading The Guardian is the definition of Cognitive Dissonance.

How about liking football and supporting the rags.

 

[Northblue]

I really hope the smoking gun doesn't turn out to be a water pistol.

the soaking gun?