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

[KS55]

It’s interesting to hear Holt described as ‘top tier’ - he’s definitely not the fizziest drink in the fridge and he jumps from one bandwagon to another with relative ease. Deffo not a man you’d want on your side in a crisis. In his defence, despite being a bit thick - which isn’t a crime - even for a journalist at least Holt isn’t a sociopath which seems to be increasingly the case for many of his colleagues in that (so called) profession.

Anyone in mind? (Don't answer that, Ric would be taken away in handcuffs)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It was The Guardian that first had a shit fit in Qatar’s human rights issue.

2013: How many more must die for Qatar's World Cup?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...man-rights-sport-cohen?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

2016: Human Rights Watch criticises Qatar on changes to its labour law
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....cises-qatar-changes-labour-law-2022-world-cup

2016: Migrant workers suffer ‘appalling treatment’ in Qatar World Cup stadiums, says Amnesty

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ment-in-qatar-world-cup-stadiums-says-amnesty

2018: Qatar migrant workers are still being exploited, says Amnesty report

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....p-workers-still-exploited-says-amnesty-report

2019: Sudden deaths of hundreds of migrant workers in Qatar not investigated

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....-of-migrant-workers-in-qatar-not-investigated

2019: Qatar stadium deaths: the dark side of the glittering venue hosting Liverpool


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....side-of-liverpools-glittering-world-cup-venue

2020: Covid-19 lockdown turns Qatar’s largest migrant camp into ‘virtual prison’

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....tars-largest-migrant-camp-into-virtual-prison

——————————

They never stop having a moan although I suppose I should be thankful that it’s in part of their reporting in the West that Qatar ditches the Kafala employment system where one’s employer had to give permission to leave the country etc.

When you say you think The Guardian is acting under instruction, who’s instruction do you believe they’re acting under?

I was referring more to City actually, with the way that Conn made a complete U-turn after writing about the document showing that the Executive Council paid the Etihad sponsorship. It was almost as though someone had screamed at him "You can't write that! It completely demolishes UEFA's case. FFS Conn, what were you thinking? Get out an article condemning City as a human-rights abusing bunch of liars and cheats asap!"

But to answer your point. Yes they criticise Qatar but only ever on migrant worker rights. McGeehan only ever criticised Qatar on migrant workers' rights whereas he criticised the UAE over everything; the fact it was a tribal monarchy, the lack of democracy, press freedom, freedom to criticise the ruling family, women's and LGBT rights, the judicial system, the way it presented a completely different image to the world than the way it behaved domestically, etc.

It seems McGeehan wrote two articles in The Guardian in 2010. He was 2 years away from working for HRW then so he was just a private person living & working in the UAE. So to get the chance to write not just one, but two articles, was interesting in itself.

Here's the first, about the UAE. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/18/sex-and-the-city-2-abu-dhabi and it's a full-blown attack on the UAE. And you think "If it's that bad, why live there?"

Then just over 6 months later there's this one on Qatar. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/06/qatar-world-cup-human-rights and it's like "Yeah, there's a bit of a problem with women and LGBT stuff but that's not really important compared to migrant workers".

Now let's be honest here; the UAE & Qatar are almost identical in all those areas covered by human rights. Both are run on Islamic principles although they're much less strict than most. Neither are what we'd call democratic, being run by ruling families, or have a truly independent press or judiciary. Both can be repressive when they want to be and both have an implicit social contract with their citizens that they will get well looked after if they don't rock the boat.

It's not perfect in the way we understand these things but they're both relatively new countries and in a region of the world where there's some serious instability, they're stable albeit imperfect. You and other expats in Qatar and the Gulf have a good life as long as you keep your nose clean and don't do anything stupid. I'm not going to lose my shit over it but I do wonder why there's a somewhat different approach taken in the columns of The Guardian.

 

[M18CTID]

Thanks for the reply but I'm not sure you have answered my question. In regards Abramovich's hypocrisy or otherwise I don't think that's relevant. My personal opinion is Chelsea were never more than an advised financial transaction that gave him something to do on a Saturday. He handed over control with instructions to make him money, hypocrisy doesn't come into it, its Bruce Buck making decisions he feels are best for Chelsea at any given time.

My original point was Abramovich turned massive losses into an interest free loans, FFP as is wouldn't allow him do that anymore, not if they wanted to compete in European competition anyway. Surely you can acknowledge that's a good thing? Your suggestion that everyone finds a Gibson or Mansour is miles off the mark, every con artist and crook that has brought clubs over the years have made the promises that the sun shines out of their arse. I could stay here typing dodgy owners until it gets dark, you would be scraping around the bottom of the barrels within 2 minutes trying to name ones that for your description.

On a side note Chelsea can't sell their ground, although they own it they don't own the turnstiles, a fan group owns them and has repeatedly refused to sell.

FFP doesn’t stop dodgy fuckers from owning football clubs and anyone who thinks it does needs to give their heads a serious wobble. Look at the Oyston family for starters - the worst type of owners imaginable (and English as well so it’s not just those pesky foreigners who ruin football clubs), yet Blackpool would’ve passed Premier League and UEFA FFP with flying colours. Same goes for Portsmouth and Leeds when they fell from grace - an examination of the most recent set of accounts for both clubs immediately prior to them going into administration showed that both would’ve passed PL FFP easily and even UEFA’s stricter version. Look at Bury - do you think FFP would’ve saved them from going bust?

 

[M18CTID]

Middlesbrough have debts of £105m to Steve Gibson. No idea why you think they are the the epitome of a well run club ???

In the days before FFP they were paying ridiculous wages they couldn't afford on Boksic and Ravanelli etc then started crying when their cash ran out and foreign ownership arrived.

Google the many interviews Boro Exec Keith Lamb gave at the time of the ADUG takeover and I find it similar sour grapes to Chelsea making an about turn and supporting FFP when other teams started spending big.

It’s not so much that they’re a well run club and more to do with Gibson being one of the best types of owner a club can have. A fan of the club who saved them from certain bankruptcy in 1986 and ever since he’s put way more in than he’s likely to get out. It’s only recently that he has turned the money tap off (and who can blame him after over 3 decades?), but despite their debts it’s highly unlikely he’s going to allow ‘Boro to go to the wall because he is the epitome of a benevolent owner.

 

[M18CTID]

Much to agree with here. However, I would not have a problem with sensible regulation of debt which would prevent another Leeds, Portsmouth, or the possible collapse of Chelsea. I would tie a maximum debt to a multiple of turnover (perhaps 1.5) and outlaw borrowings which included onerous pay back terms, e.g. short notice. See PB's comment on NFL regs. Similarly, I would ban owners from selling the ground to themselves or their companies (Brighton, Luton, Bury(?)) or holding a mortgage thereon, thus separating club and ground.

Sorry but that’s all way too sensible for the powers that be to implement!

 

[waspish]

It’s not so much that they’re a well run club and more to do with Gibson being one of the best types of owner a club can have. A fan of the club who saved them from certain bankruptcy in 1986 and ever since he’s put way more in than he’s likely to get out. It’s only recently that he has turned the money tap off (and who can blame him after over 3 decades?), but despite their debts it’s highly unlikely he’s going to allow ‘Boro to go to the wall because he is the epitome of a benevolent owner.

Yep while he is still alive they are safe.

 

[M18CTID]

Yep while he is still alive they are safe.

Good point! I’d imagine he’d try and make some provision if the worst happens to him though. Obviously that’s not something that could be in place indefinitely as Blackburn fans found out when Jack Walker passed away, but my point was that as far as owners of football clubs go Gibson is one of the better ones.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Once you start regulating P&L items, you get into all sorts of trouble with definitions, knock on effects, interference with the business, one size fits all problems, etc etc. You finish up making more and more arcane rules. See the prem's own wage rule which caused Arsenal real problems because they had a relatively low commercial income to which wage increases were effectively tied.

Oh well, it's needed. Besides, anything that hurts the Gooners is a good thing. When you have clubs in the Championship at 100/150% ratios it's unsustainable and needs restricting because the revenue isn't there.

 

[KS55]

Oh well, it's needed. Besides, anything that hurts the Gooners is a good thing. When you have clubs in the Championship at 100/150% ratios it's unsustainable and needs restricting because the revenue isn't there.

But wages are a key item in business strategy. Restrict that and you interfere with the heart of the business.
I need to pay over the odds to attract the best players to Dirtytown, but I make up the difference by other means such as a benign owner. See Jack Walker. I could not, however, endanger the club if overspending were regulated by debt limits.

 

[iwasthere1968]

Any way back to the CAS hearing.
If as we all hope CAS find in favour of City where does this leave us.
If they rebuke UEFA and overturn the ruling we are back on the CL.
Ok , but what powers do CAS have over EUFA what can they do other than wag a finger at them?
What do City then do ? Go to the Swiss courts? To do exactly what ?
Going after the Cartel is emotionely satisfying but are there other actions that might be taken ?
Any thoughts ?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

If we are cleared of the allegations, City won't do anything else in pursuit of UEFA. Much to the chagrin of a lot of blues. I suspect the details of the tribunral will be kept secret unfortunately to ensure nobody knows the reasons for us being "cleared". This for me would be the most unsatisfactory element of that outcome.
UEFA will do what it always does, internal wrangles will follow and the axe will be wielded. Maybe Leterme maybe even Ceferin will be sacrificed in a little political blood letting. We all know they are like heads of the Hydra.
I suspect FFP will change and be less impactfull and everyone goes back to normal.
The media will call us cheats that got away with it and we will remain forever tainted in some way. Is this a satisfactory outcome? Each will have to decide for themselves.
I suspect most will be left wanting something more and having a particular bad taste left in their mouths.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Any way back to the CAS hearing.
If as we all hope CAS find in favour of City where does this leave us.
If they rebuke UEFA and overturn the ruling we are back on the CL.
Ok , but what powers do CAS have over EUFA what can they do other than wag a finger at them?
What do City then do ? Go to the Swiss courts? To do exactly what ?
Going after the Cartel is emotionely satisfying but are there other actions that might be taken ?
Any thoughts ?

As far as I'm aware, CAS rulings are binding on the parties. The three potential outcomes are that it finds tha UEFA was correct in the way it conducted the case, came to its conclusion and applied the penalty. It can find that it was correct in the way it conducted the case and came to its conclusion but that the penalty is too severe. That's happened a few times and, while it's not an order as I understand it, UEFA has never failed to comply when it's been recommended to reduce the punishment. Or it can find in our favour and that UEFA improperly conducted the case and/or came to the wrong conclusion. In that case the punishment they've imposed doesn't stand.

 

[iwasthere1968]

As far as I'm aware, CAS rulings are binding on the parties. The three potential outcomes are that it finds tha UEFA was correct in the way it conducted the case, came to its conclusion and applied the penalty. It can find that it was correct in the way it conducted the case and came to its conclusion but that the penalty is too severe. That's happened a few times and, while it's not an order as I understand it, UEFA has never failed to comply when it's been recommended to reduce the punishment. Or it can find in our favour and that UEFA improperly conducted the case and/or came to the wrong conclusion. In that case the punishment they've imposed doesn't stand.

So we get to a situation where we are somewhat tainted but are still on the CL.
"Cheats ", "got away with it " , " brown envelopes " , "bought the verdict " etc etc ..
This can't be our final objective. Can it ?

 

[FrankSwift1]

As far as I'm aware, CAS rulings are binding on the parties. The three potential outcomes are that it finds tha UEFA was correct in the way it conducted the case, came to its conclusion and applied the penalty. It can find that it was correct in the way it conducted the case and came to its conclusion but that the penalty is too severe. That's happened a few times and, while it's not an order as I understand it, UEFA has never failed to comply when it's been recommended to reduce the punishment. Or it can find in our favour and that UEFA improperly conducted the case and/or came to the wrong conclusion. In that case the punishment they've imposed doesn't stand.

In the scenario where the punishment doesn't stand what do you think City do next? If anything?

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

We need CAS to come out with a clear verdict. If CAS decide that we are in the clear, they have got to come out and say why. There are 2 ways of doing this, 1st by a video conference call, or 2nd by releasing a press statement. There mustn't be anything that can be ambiguous in the statement

When we are found not guilty the statement has got to say something like, Not guilty on all accounts. All the accounts were clear and precise, and there is nothing wrong with the books.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

In answer to your question FrankSwift1 I hope that we then go after all those who have either said something or printing something. So that would be slander and libel. We go out and see how much we can get. If this bankrupts either a company or a person so be it.

Even if they want to offer a full and frank apology, that also will not do. Give us the damages we are asking for or we will see you in court.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So we get to a situation where we are somewhat tainted but are still on the CL.
"Cheats ", "got away with it " , " brown envelopes " , "bought the verdict " etc etc ..
This can't be our final objective. Can it ?

I don't think it is. Everything I've heard directly and indirectly suggests this is going to be our Michael Corleone moment. But let's get over the first hurdle.

 

[Akpowell]

If we get cleared of all the charges that will be it, end off, there won't be any shit storm

 

[gingerprince]

If CAS judgement were to exonerate City on all charges and believed person or persons within the EUFA

process acted improperly does that automatically invoke an inquiry into that wrongdoing, or would City

as party involved have to initiate something, [and if they wanted to], or is that not within remit of CAS?

If there were to be an inquiry, which body would action that, an independent body within EUFA or other?

 

[iwasthere1968]

I don't think it is. Everything I've heard directly and indirectly suggests this is going to be our Michael Corleone moment. But let's get over the first hurdle.

Agreed.