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

[franksinatra]

You are correct. Been at the Gin this evening. Not going to fall out with a fellow blue over a misunderstanding.

I’ll read back in the morning when I’m sober.

Ha, fair enough. To clarify my point then, if we agree it is ok to break rules, because we do not agree with them, do we also accept others should be allowed to also? You make the point about Chelsea, which is an easy one to agree with as it is a rule you would happily see broken.

But would you accept rules being broken by people who might think too much owner investment is allowed, such as our enemies, would you be happy for them to break them against us also?

My point was its a bit too easy to say if you don't agree with a rule break them, because that has consequences also.

Anyway good night and I hope you enjoy your gin.

 

[franksinatra]

Worrying isn't good for your health, much better to be optimistic.

Why worry about something for Months on end only for it not to happen after all.

All that stress and anxiety for nothing, worry about something when you have something to actually worry about, not something that might happen sometime in the future.

Very true mate and the past couple of months have shone a light on what is really important. I do ‘worry’ about the outcome but that is in the context of ‘football worry’ which is not amongst my primary emotions.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Very true mate and the past couple of months have shone a light on what is really important. I do ‘worry’ about the outcome but that is in the context of ‘football worry’ which is not amongst my primary emotions.

I might just listen to some Frank Sinatra now.

When I was 17, it was a very good year...

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Ha, fair enough. To clarify my point then, if we agree it is ok to break rules, because we do not agree with them, do we also accept others should be allowed to also? You make the point about Chelsea, which is an easy one to agree with as it is a rule you would like to see broken.

But would you accept people, say for example, who might think, too much owner investment is allowed, such as our enemies, would you be happy for them to break them against us also?

My point was its a bit too easy to say if you don't agree with a rule break them, because that has consequences also.

We’ll have to stretch the imagination here, and it has shades of Jack Walker at Blackburn.

If I had made a successful business, sold it, invested correctly and wound up as a Richard Branson type figure (yes, he’s a repulsive twat but hey ho). If I want to spunk the lot on trying to turn Rochdale into European Champions, that’s my business. Or if I wanted to be lazy and buy one of the big boys and invest, again that’s my business.

Football is and always should be cyclical. Clubs have periods of success and the lean times. But to your point, none of those clubs were whiter than white. Clubs have been bending and breaking rules as long as the game has been going. In our case, this is the most flagrant attempt at protectionism ever. Most of the clubs are bent, UEFA is bent, FIFA is bent.

I think my point is that other clubs and the associations have been breaking rules since the game began. Even the Leicester City title win was framed as a beautifully romantic story. They went into administration to avoid terrible debt which eventually paved the way for the investment from KingPower. I’m just amazed how everybody seems to have a selective memory to the point that some City fans begin to doubt their own loyalties.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

We’ll have to stretch the imagination here, and it has shades of Jack Walker at Blackburn.

If I had made a successful business, sold it, invested correctly and wound up as a Richard Branson type figure (yes, he’s a repulsive twat but hey ho). If I want to spunk the lot on trying to turn Rochdale into European Champions, that’s my business. Or if I wanted to be lazy and buy one of the big boys and invest, again that’s my business.

Football is and always should be cyclical. Clubs have periods of success and the lean times. But to your point, none of those clubs were whiter than white. Clubs have been bending and breaking rules as long as the game has been going. In our case, this is the most flagrant attempt at protectionism ever. Most of the clubs are bent, UEFA is bent, FIFA is bent.

I think my point is that other clubs and the associations have been breaking rules since the game began. Even the Leicester City title win was framed as a beautifully romantic story. They went into administration to avoid terrible debt which eventually paved the way for the investment from KingPower. I’m just amazed how everybody seems to have a selective memory to the point that some City fans begin to doubt their own loyalties.

Arsenal being promoted by a vote and not by on field success likes your post.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We should never accept we're guilty. If CAS rules we are, we will definitely have problems and the club will have to adjust to that injustice and be worse because of it, but that's not the problem we created, it's a problem thrown at us for daring to compete.

We're guilty for nothing and should never accept the enemies instill that feeling into us. Only that would be defeat, everything else is just step back on the road to victory.

Sorry to pick up on your post particularly but there's a general point I wanted to make so be assured I'm not having a go at you here.

People are talking about us being "guilty". That's nonsense. We haven't killed or assaulted anyone, we haven't stolen anything. We haven't broken any laws at all in fact. CAS won't find us "guilty" or "innocent". What we've allegedly done is contravene some rules. I can't even find evidence of how these rules were accepted by the majority as all I can see is that a body appointed by UEFA, the Club Financial Control Panel, came up with the rules, which were endorsed by the Executive Committee. So anyone who also says "We signed up to them" is also wrong. They were imposed on UEFA associations whether they liked them or not as far as I can see.

The thing with rules and laws, particularly financial ones, is that they're always open to interpretation. That's why we have commercial courts, tax tribunals, employment tribunals etc. Because when sorting out tax, an acountant may take one view and HMRC an opposing one. It's about interpretation and that often involves deciding what the spirit of the rule was. It's also about what you think you can legally get away with.

The central question with our alleged breach is does it matter where Etihad and the other two Abu Dhabi-based sponsors got their money from? And the answer is, as I've shown, yes it could well matter, depending on the circumstances. But my interpretation of the FFP rules is that if Sheikh Mansour didn't pay that money, then we haven't broken any rules and, even if he did, we might not have.

I assume that UEFA's interpretation of the Der Spiegel stories will be one of our key lines of defence (although it might not be) with us arguing they were wrong and we can show that quite categorically. People are also talking about false accounting, which is ridiculous. If Etihad gave us £50m and we recorded that as £50m sponsorship then we've done things quite correctly. If, on the other hand, Etihad gave us £10m and Sheikh Mansour gave us the other £40m, which we recorded as being fom Etihad, then we could have been seen to have misreported the income. but I'm pretty confident we did things by the book.

So please can we not talk about us being "guilty" and this being some sort of court case that will establish our guilt or innocence. It will, I believe, establish if UEFA's interpretation and implementation of its own processes and procedures was correct and whether they had any genuine grounds for re-opening our case.

 

[KS55]

Sorry to pick up on your post particularly but there's a general point I wanted to make so be assured I'm not having a go at you here.

People are talking about us being "guilty". That's nonsense. We haven't killed or assaulted anyone, we haven't stolen anything. We haven't broken any laws at all in fact. CAS won't find us "guilty" or "innocent". What we've allegedly done is contravene some rules. I can't even find evidence of how these rules were accepted by the majority as all I can see is that a body appointed by UEFA, the Club Financial Control Panel, came up with the rules, which were endorsed by the Executive Committee. So anyone who also says "We signed up to them" is also wrong. They were imposed on UEFA members whether they liked them or not.

The thing with rules and laws, particularly financial ones, is that they're always open to interpretation. That's why we have commercial courts, tax tribunals, employment tribunals etc. Because when sorting out tax, an acountant may take one view and HMRC an opposing one. It's about interpretation and that often involves deciding what the spirit of the rule was. It's also about what you think you can legally get away with.

The central question with our alleged breach is does it matter where Etihad and the other two Abu Dhabi-based sponsors got their money from? And the answer is, as I've shown, yes it could well matter, depending on the circumstances. But my interpretation of the FFP rules is that if Sheikh Mansour didn't pay that money, then we haven't broken any rules and, even if he did, we might not have.

I assume that UEFA interpretation of the Der Spiegel stories will be one of our key lines of defence (although it might not be) with us arguing they were wrong and we can show that quite categorically. People are also tyalking about false accounting, which is ridiculous. If Etiahd gave us £50m and we recorded that as £50m sponsorship then we've done things quite correctly. If, on the other hand, Etihad gave us £10m and Sheikh Mansour gave us the other £40m, which we recorded as being fom Etihad, then we could have been seen to have misreported the income. but I'm pretty confident we did things by the book.

So please can we not talk about us being "guilty" and this being some sort of court case that will establish our guilt or innocence. It will, I believe, establish if UEFA's interpretation and implementation of its own processes and procedures was correct and whether they had any genuine grounds for re-opening our case.

Thanks PB. It grates with me too when the issue is framed in those criminal terms. We should all take note of this post and adjust our language.
Talking of criminals, wonder how easily some on Merseyside are sleeping!

 

[bluemonkey71]

So would SilverLake have invested heavily in us if they knew we were going to get done over in court....

 

[franksinatra]

Thanks PB. It grates with me too when the issue is framed in those criminal terms. We should all take note of this post and adjust our language.
Talking of criminals, wonder how easily some on Merseyside are sleeping!

Yes, note to myself there.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

All any of this proves to me is what a shithouse business professional football is.
I agree with PB’s summary that we are guilty of nothing. Because the whole thing is corrupt and the rules are skewed (particularly against us)


As such and in the present circumstances whereby I honestly have not missed football, I genuinely don’t know what outcome from CAS would actually satisfy me.

My current thinking hasn’t changed, I really feel like I’m done with football, in it’s present form.

I don’t feel the outcome I would fantasise about is possible. I think there is too much stacked against us in the overall game, but I do live in hope.

How I would love to see the tide turn.
I don’t even want to see City be a part of this corrupt money-centric business but that, I fear is being just naive.

Like I said. I truly don’t know what would satisfy me at this stage.