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

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Are you sure?

Case is 8-10 June

Season restarts 17th June

Sorry - thought I'd read 12th

 

[oakiecokie]

Yeah, we'll see soon enough. Then it's trebles all round or hari kiri. My drink is already on ice.

Shaken but not stirred ?

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I think a few are just confusing what CAS is actually for and its remit?

There will be plenty of facets to our defence but it is still a hearing about procedure and protocols, unless others can put me right?

I think they have a broader remit than that mate, it won't just be about procedure, doubt it would take 3 days if that was the case.

Ceferin himself said it was "a big file", when he did that interview with, was it Swanson?

I'm sure the irrefutable evidence won't be about procedure either.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I've just had a look at the FAQ's on the CAS website. And there are 3 different types of cases.

Ordinary, Mediation and Appeals.

I believe our case is Appeals, and a judgement can actually be given as soon as the case is finished. Not saying that will happen but is possible.

 

[KS55]

I think a few are just confusing what CAS is actually for and its remit?

There will be plenty of facets to our defence but it is still a hearing about procedure and protocols, unless others can put me right?

The idea has been floated that CAS is all about procedure. This is untrue, they can enquire and
rule on matters of substance. In our case, I'm sure they will look hard not only at UEFA's procedural performance but also at their substantive case. I think we will win on both counts, but then all those years ago, I thought we would beat Fernebhace.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

The idea has been floated that CAS is all about procedure. This is untrue, they can enquire and
rule on matters of substance. In our case, I'm sure they will look hard not only at UEFA's procedural performance but also at their substantive case. I think we will win on both counts, but then all those years ago, I thought we would beat Fernebhace.

The home leg was my first ever game at Maine Road. Sat on my dad's shoulders in the Kippax Street. The rest would be history but as we know we don’t have any

 

[KS55]

The home leg was my first ever game at Maine Road. Sat on my dad's shoulders in the Kippax Street. The rest would be history but as we know we don’t have any

I was a dyed in the wool Kippax man by then. We were dreadful in the home leg!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why would he offer a deal, especially any deal he knows City will outright reject? That makes no sense, either he's certain he has City bang to rights and wants to avoid years in court rooms knowing they will appeal or else he thinks the case is wafer thin and will collapse. In the latter scenario why not just release leak the evidence that blows the case up, quietly throw a couple under the bus and get this all over with it.

Why should we accept a deal if we are innocent that doesn't make sence

Why would he offer a deal and why would we refuse? sometimes it's just easier for all parties just to give something up even if they're not necessarily convinced it's the right thing.

Well I suspect he offered us a deal because he's not the enemy but is piggy-in-the-middle between us and the G-14 clubs and he was trying to avoid a conflict that would potentially split UEFA. I was told that the G-14 threatened to split from UEFA if we didn't receive the harshest punishment. They threaten that all the time but the pressure is on for a European Super League, which potentially leaves UEFA out in the cold and robs them of valuable revenue. So he's trying to walk a tightrope whereby we're punished but not too badly and he hopefully keeps the other clubs onside as well. Personally I don't think that was ever going to work. If the two CFCB Chambers are as independent as he says they are, then either he couldn't deliver a deal or they aren't independent.

I'm also told the evidence IS wafer thin so maybe he was just trying it on, getting us to take a plea bargain to save a case that had little chance of success and would make him look a bit stupid, as President, when UEFA copped some embarrassing flak from CAS. So to save face essentially. I'm not sure he knew we'd reject it but he does now. He's also a politician and I also suspect that he wouldn't be too upset if the G-14 got a bloody nose and had to retreat in ignominy, with the wind taken very much out of their sails.

And to refuse a deal that seems quite tempting on the surface, we really must either be completely convinced of both our innocence and of our prospect of proving it. Or else we want our day in court even if there's a chance we'll lose just so that we can launch a few missiles at our enemies.

 

[Silva2021]

Why would he offer a deal and why would we refuse? sometimes it's just easier for all parties just to give something up even if they're not necessarily convinced it's the right thing.

Well I suspect he offered us a deal because he's not the enemy but is piggy-in-the-middle between us and the G-14 clubs and he was trying to avoid a conflict that would potentially split UEFA. I was told that the G-14 threatened to split from UEFA if we didn't receive the harshest punishment. They threaten that all the time but the pressure is on for a European Super League, which potentially leaves UEFA out in the cold and robs them of valuable revenue. So he's trying to walk a tightrope whereby we're punished but not too badly and he hopefully keeps the other clubs onside as well. Personally I don't think that was ever going to work. If the two CFCB Chambers are as independent as he says they are, then either he couldn't deliver a deal or they aren't independent.

I'm also told the evidence IS wafer thin so maybe he was just trying it on, getting us to take a plea bargain to save a case that had little chance of success and would make him look a bit stupid, as President, when UEFA copped some embarrassing flak from CAS. So to save face essentially. I'm not sure he knew we'd reject it but he does now. He's also a politician and I also suspect that he wouldn't be too upset if the G-14 got a bloody nose and had to retreat in ignominy, with the wind taken very much out of their sails.

And to refuse a deal that seems quite tempting on the surface, we really must either be completely convinced of both our innocence and of our prospect of proving it. Or else we want our day in court even if there's a chance we'll lose just so that we can launch a few missiles at our enemies.

I’ve been told in describing UEFA’s evidence as wafer thin, would be to seriously under estimate the of strength of a wafer, I take it we’re free to keep playing!!

Great line, slightly adapted from one of the better bbc sitcoms of the last few years.

I seriously have no clue and would have preferred us to have shook hands on the no ban deal.

To not do that does indicate innocence to me, the question is can we prove it as that seems to be the case. Hopefully it does not drag on.

 

[KS55]

Why would he offer a deal and why would we refuse? sometimes it's just easier for all parties just to give something up even if they're not necessarily convinced it's the right thing.

Well I suspect he offered us a deal because he's not the enemy but is piggy-in-the-middle between us and the G-14 clubs and he was trying to avoid a conflict that would potentially split UEFA. I was told that the G-14 threatened to split from UEFA if we didn't receive the harshest punishment. They threaten that all the time but the pressure is on for a European Super League, which potentially leaves UEFA out in the cold and robs them of valuable revenue. So he's trying to walk a tightrope whereby we're punished but not too badly and he hopefully keeps the other clubs onside as well. Personally I don't think that was ever going to work. If the two CFCB Chambers are as independent as he says they are, then either he couldn't deliver a deal or they aren't independent.

I'm also told the evidence IS wafer thin so maybe he was just trying it on, getting us to take a plea bargain to save a case that had little chance of success and would make him look a bit stupid, as President, when UEFA copped some embarrassing flak from CAS. So to save face essentially. I'm not sure he knew we'd reject it but he does now. He's also a politician and I also suspect that he wouldn't be too upset if the G-14 got a bloody nose and had to retreat in ignominy, with the wind taken very much out of their sails.

And to refuse a deal that seems quite tempting on the surface, we really must either be completely convinced of both our innocence and of our prospect of proving it. Or else we want our day in court even if there's a chance we'll lose just so that we can launch a few missiles at our enemies.

Great post. Sums up the politics nicely.

 

[91:23]

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.

POD you nailed this Boro myth 100%. I have had many a barny with Boro fans about this due to the fact I moved up here for work. Lamb is a complete gobshite blaming City for spending big and how that's affected Boro. The argument usually ends with the 8-1 BS, to which I reply 'So hows your trophy since then'

 

[bluwes]

The idea has been floated that CAS is all about procedure. This is untrue, they can enquire and
rule on matters of substance. In our case, I'm sure they will look hard not only at UEFA's procedural performance but also at their substantive case. I think we will win on both counts, but then all those years ago, I thought we would beat Fernebhace.

Malcolm told us we would.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I note some blues are still not quite understanding the gravity of any guilt in association with this charge. If we get found to have acted as we have been charged by UEFA and there is no ban and no fine from UEFA let alone a reduction to a year we will be up to our necks in shit. We're accused of cooking the books, (that is a crime in law and against a multitude of Premier League competition rules) not just offending a few European rules for their tin pot competition. The PL will come down on us like a ton of bricks and Points deductions, bans and trophys rescinded is not out of the question. If the Police and the CPS get involved people could go to prison. Yes it's potentially that serious. It's why we cannot and must not lose any part of this case.

 

[chaddblue]

I note some blues are still not quite understanding the gravity of any guilt in association with this charge. If we get found guilty and there is no ban and no fine from UEFA let alone a reduction to a year we will be up to our necks in shit. We're accused of cooking the books, (that is a crime in law and against a multitude of Premier League competition rules) not just offending a few European rules for their tin pot competition. The PL will come down on us like a ton of bricks and Points deductions, bans and trophys rescinded is not out of the question. If the Police and the CPS get involved people could go to prison. Yes it's potentially that serious. It's why we cannot and must not lose any part of this case.

Pretty sure even if we’re 100% guilty of what we’re accused of, we’ve not broken any criminal laws.. we will have just tried to circumnavigate some dodgy (possibly illegal) UEFA financial regulations. We’ve not commited bribery, extortion or tax fraud so if the very worst happens there will be no police or CPS involved .. or at least there won’t be any involved looking at what we’ve done

 

[better dead than red]

Columbian drug cartels could use them to launder a few dollars I guess.

Most have their own teams in Colombia

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Pretty sure even if we’re 100% guilty of what we’re accused of, we’ve not broken any criminal laws.. we will have just tried to circumnavigate some dodgy (possibly illegal) UEFA financial regulations. We’ve not commited bribery, extortion or tax fraud so if the very worst happens there will be no police or CPS involved .. or at least there won’t be any involved looking at what we’ve done

What they are alleging is false statements within our accounts which are in effect legal documents under the Companies Act. I can assure you breaching them is a criminal offence for which directors are liable. Although not commonly, high profile cases of director fraud that have occurred previously have resulted in prosecution and incarceration. This is a pretty big case, no?

 

[SEAC1986]

Malcolm told us we would.

Big Mal said we would terrify Europe , he was right all along

 

[Centurions]

What they are alleging is false statements within our accounts which are in effect legal documents under the Companies Act. I can assure you breaching them is a criminal offence for which directors are liable. Although not commonly, high profile cases of director fraud that have occurred previously have resulted in prosecution and incarceration. This is a pretty big case, no?

I'm as far from a financial expert as you can get but I'm pretty sure you're talking bollocks there bud. They are not alleging that at all, in fact as far as I'm aware, if (and it's still a very big if) the Sheikh did put up some of the sponsorship money for Etihad to pay us, then that's not illegal in any case.

 

[the talisman]

I note some blues are still not quite understanding the gravity of any guilt in association with this charge. If we get found to have acted as we have been charged by UEFA and there is no ban and no fine from UEFA let alone a reduction to a year we will be up to our necks in shit. We're accused of cooking the books, (that is a crime in law and against a multitude of Premier League competition rules) not just offending a few European rules for their tin pot competition. The PL will come down on us like a ton of bricks and Points deductions, bans and trophys rescinded is not out of the question. If the Police and the CPS get involved people could go to prison. Yes it's potentially that serious. It's why we cannot and must not lose any part of this case.

If we are found guilty why would there be no ban and no fine?

 

[BringBackSwales]

What they are alleging is false statements within our accounts which are in effect legal documents under the Companies Act. I can assure you breaching them is a criminal offence for which directors are liable. Although not commonly, high profile cases of director fraud that have occurred previously have resulted in prosecution and incarceration. This is a pretty big case, no?

No it isn’t. It’s about allegedly breaking uefa rules on what’s allowed and what’s not for uefa purposes; it’s nothing to do with illegal activity or false accounting