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

[George Hannah]

My personal opinion of our achievements will not be undermined. The opinion of others is already made up irrespective of guilt.
However we don’t know that anyone elses have been overlooked. There have been ffp fines and bans handed out beyond just to us, albeit ours is the strongest yet. But seemingly this is because of supposed lies and deception rather than actually failing ffp.
All I’m saying is we cannot in hindsight make a fuss about the rules after breaking them when we publically didnt in the past.
If we broke them we broke them

not sure I'm following that line of reasoning - our case is that we didn't break any rules.

 

[Woody135]

It’s far to simplistic to say rules are rules, City agreed to the t&c to enter UEFA’s competition, to not do so would seriously damage City commercially effectively they had no option, and they tried their level best to adhere. UEFA though, changed the criteria to catch City out despite this, and for the greater good City agreed a “pinch” UEFA and the old guard weren’t satisfied with this and have gone after City again. So now City are contesting the t&c has they every right to do so, like any contract it can be challenged even though initially accepted as they had to accept or as I said be damaged commercially

Maybe someone needs to correct me if my understanding on this is wrong.

We have been accused of filtering owner money through false and inflated sponsorship deals. That is not (by accusation) trying our level best to adhere to the rules. It (if true) would be trying to cheat the rules.

You can argue on the fairness of the rules by all means but you can’t do so in hindsight.

Now if that isn’t true then brilliant, no rules broken, ban overturned and we are validated as a club. But until this happens there will always be question marks placed on us by rival teams. It is inevitable in competitive sport.

It is then for us to decide as fans whether that matters.

No one forced us to agree to ffp on competing in europe. Agreed it would have damaged us commercially and viably it wasnt an option not to. But we did and hence we should (and hopefully have) complied

 

[Woody135]

not sure I'm following that line of reasoning - our case is that we didn't break any rules.

So if cas say we have, what then?

 

[George Hannah]

So if cas say we have, what then?

It's on to the next court of appeal

 

[Woody135]

But what if the speed sign was changed from 30 to 20 after you passed it and you reluctantly accepted a fine and points short of a driving ban. Several years later the police say somebody has sent them an email suggesting that someone else drive the car that day and you misled them about who was driving and will now be banned. They have no proof and you know you were the driver but they're going to ban you anyway

What if you had lied and you weren’t/were the driver when you said you was/wasnt, and an independent court decided you had lied.

I’m not saying we are guilty. I’m very hopeful we aren’t. We’re just placing a lot of faith in club executives that have not been involved with the club as long as we have.

If we are found guilty by cas we can not keep blindly saying that we are the only ones honest and telling the truth

 

[Woody135]

It's on to the next court of appeal

And if that one says we’re guilty?

At what stage do we say actually maybe our execs havent been fully honest with us, or do we believe them indefinitely

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

And if that one says we’re guilty?

At what stage do we say actually maybe our execs havent been fully honest with us, or do we believe them indefinitely

Tbf most city fans will probably be inclined to believe the club's execs until such a time as there is a proper legal process that proves them wrong. I can understand how this may seem myopic to fans of other clubs...

 

[Woody135]

Tbf most city fans will probably be inclined to believe the club's execs until such a time as there is a proper legal process that proves them wrong. I can understand how this may seem myopic to fans of other clubs...

That is my concern when reading this thread. I get the feeling an increasing number of us will only accept it to be a proper legal process if we are cleared. That may not necessarily be the case. In this scenario we need to be able to deal with it or it will define our club for years

 

[Norbiton]

What if you had lied and you weren’t/were the driver when you said you was/wasnt, and an independent court decided you had lied.

I’m not saying we are guilty. I’m very hopeful we aren’t. We’re just placing a lot of faith in club executives that have not been involved with the club as long as we have.

If we are found guilty by cas we can not keep blindly saying that we are the only ones honest and telling the truth

An independent court would have to have proof that we'd lied.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

That is my concern when reading this thread. I get the feeling an increasing number of us will only accept it to be a proper legal process if we are cleared. That may not necessarily be the case. In this scenario we need to be able to deal with it or it will define our club for years

I'm sure we will deal with it. Even if the worst happens it's hardly like we'll be back to 1998, or even 2008. Worst it will do is press pause for a year or two.

 

[Rammy Blue]

You’ll need double that if I’m around! I’ll drop you a line in advance if I’m thinking of coming online. I’ll be wearing my brownest trousers.....

You do love your glass being half empty, mate.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Tbf most city fans will probably be inclined to believe the club's execs until such a time as there is a proper legal process that proves them wrong. I can understand how this may seem myopic to fans of other clubs...

Agreed, and it's far from any kind of blind faith in my opinion too, we know from our own experience of how Sheikh Mansour, Karl Doon etc etc operate and conduct themselves and their business, I trust them implicitly, if we'd fucked up, I actually think they would hold their hands up and say it, they're honourable people, sadly, some sections will never accept that.

 

[Woody135]

An independent court would have to have proof that we'd lied.

I think we’re getting too deep into the metaphor here.

Ultimately that has already happened in a UEFA court. We are now appealing to an independent court. So WE need to prove innocence (i assume) not them proving guilt.
Our evidence has been claimed to be irrefutable (as I’m sure most people say in their own defence), but if that proves not to be the case ...

 

[The Colonel]

Bravado, in my interpretation here, was about our lack of awareness of what we were putting in writing at a very senior level.

That stuff should have been done in phone calls etc, especially since it seems our IT firewall was still under license from the Swales era.

Possibly negligent in IT security terms (although Pinto is no teenager in his bedroom) but on content only if you assume that we were up to no good. If we’re to believe City’s continued stance, we’ve done nothing wrong and from that point of view we weren’t discussing anything on email that should be incriminating. I understand your caution though as, after all, we know nothing.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

This sharpened my mind about ffp.
Thinking about it, It seems that the legitimacy of ffp rests almost entirely on the insistence that it is ‘good for the sport’ , as uefa know better than the law.
No surprise then about the warning from the ECJ after the Bosman ruling, which surely sets a precedent that uefa should be very conscious of.

I agree completely. The ECJ rejected entirely UEFA's contention that the Bosman case was none of the court's concern but was to be left to UEFA to decide what was in the best interests of the sport, as interpreted by UEFA. Of course the ruling went further and warned UEFA that any further cases would be judges according to what the law laid down and NOT what suited UEFA. Furthermore it rejected the notion of a "sporting exception" and insisted that the law of contract applied absolutely. What UEFA has tried to claim as recognition of a sporting exception was in fact an affirmation of the application of the law of contract - that both club and player were bound by the time limit of the contract unless both parties agreed to the contract's cancellation. The transfer fee is simply a means of winning the club's agreement for cancellation. If the contract runs its course and expires the player can move clubs. The Bosman case actually ruled on the application of free movement to football and showed, if anything, that it could be regulated by contract law but certainly not by UEFA, retain and transfer.

The relevance to FFP is obvious. Investment is quite clearly regulated by law and as the law applies to football, football has to abide by the law. FFP conflicts quite clearly with the laws governing the rights of investors and, therefore, any sanctions imposed for violations of FFP are null and void. UEFA has again put itself at odds with the courts and can expect no sympathy from them. And, as in the Bosman case, UEFA has the backing of the European commission but that is not a judicial body. In the Bosman case UEFA fought the case to the bitter end, in the belief, I think, that Bosman would be ruined long before he could get a favourable judgement. They were wrong then and if they think they can wear City down....

 

[spiny]

TBF, how many supporters of clubs would consistently continue to back their owners in the face of such a long anti City campaign on so many fronts?

This thread highlights clearly what has been going on since 2008 if you care to look? City are determined to seek justice. Manchester has a history of leading on good causes. Fans would not be behind the Club if they did not believe they were in the right.

It is the same belief loyalty that sustained us during our drop into the third tier when our support hardened.

Compare and contrast how City have contributed to Manchester and the treatment of City by UEFA, G14 and the original Sky5 to judge who is likely to be the most credible! Few other clubs have been involved so their supporters believe what they read and rarely beyond headlines.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But what if the speed sign was changed from 30 to 20 after you passed it and you reluctantly accepted a fine and points short of a driving ban. Several years later the police say somebody has sent them an email suggesting that someone else drive the car that day and you misled them about who was driving and will now be banned. They have no proof and you know you were the driver but they're going to ban you anyway

My analogy for all this would be that you were doing 32 in a 30 zone then being told they'd changed the limit to 20 later that day (effectively as happened with UEFA and their changing of the FFP toolkit) but effective at 8am. But as you weren't to know, they'll let you off with a £50 fine.

Then, a few years later, you get a summons for the same offence saying that they'd checked their equipment, which turned out to be faulty. They're not 100% sure but think you were doing closer to 40 so they're taking you to court for dangerous driving.

 

[Akpowell]

What's the name of the lawyer that's representing us

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What's the name of the lawyer that's representing us

Sue Grabbit-Run.

 

[Gazza]

They're from Taylor, Taylor, Taylor & Taylor, we've got Mr. Taylor.