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.
Not sure how authoritative those two "experts" (John Shea and Christopher Flanagan) are, but they didn't sound particularly confident of our chances in winning the appeal, to me at least.
They didn't seem to know what the issue was though. They've just repeated the slur that we overstated our income, which we didn't. If Etihad gave us £50m, we recorded £50m in the books. It's clear from the emails that we told Etihad the money had to be seen to be coming from them. How they got the money is none of City's business as long as they paid us what they had agreed to.

Let's say you borrowed £500 off a mate and agreed to pay it back in a month. When the month is up, you only have £100 so you borrow £400 off someone else and use that to repay the £500. Does the person you've borrowed the £500 from give a toss where the money you repaid came from? Does he refuse to accept the other £400 as it's not from you?
 
I never said they could. I said if the appeal drags on and we subsequently take part in next season's comp, should we then fail to overturn, we would have the club in fifth and the club in ninth (having missed out on Europa League) going after not only the loss of competition monies but also from sponsors.

Provide that City follow legal process, then there is no possible claim for losses, CAS rules allow for provisional and conservatory measures, if this meant we competed in ECL 20/21 because CAS haven't completed their process then that is not City's liability

R37 Provisional and Conservatory Measures

Heres the relevant chapter
When deciding whether to award preliminary relief, the President of the Division or the Panel, as the case may be, shall consider whether the relief is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, and whether the interests of the Applicant outweigh those of the Respondent(s).
 
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.