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

[crystal_mais]

From the Evans article:

There has been a cloud over City’s spending since a website called Football Leaks revealed a cache of hacked emails that contained damaging allegedly internal communications that appeared to indicate that the club had flouted FFP rules. Uefa have insisted from the start that their evidence is not connected with the illegally-obtained Football Leaks material.

So what have they got?

If they have some docs of ours then - it must be something UEFA have got via a whistleblower or from the analysis they have done on what we submitted or what the accountancy firm submitted -

 

[slbsn]

Also notice that subtle change in tone from "leaked" to "illegally obtained" in respect of the emails

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

He mentioned it a bit back on the radio that it’s our own documentation that Uefa are going to do us on.

Yep I think I might have heard it on radio or a pod or from an article.

Searched back and found this from an Evans Indy article on the 14th Feb:

City believed, rightly, that it would be very difficult to use the Football Leaks information against them. The cache of emails had not been legally obtained. However, the basis for Uefa’s charges did not come from Der Spiegel. It came from information submitted by the club. From the start, the IC were certain they had the evidence they needed.

 

[HelloCity]

Why would we give them information which showed us to be guilty? Especially considering we knew what their intentions were.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

From the Evans article:

There has been a cloud over City’s spending since a website called Football Leaks revealed a cache of hacked emails that contained damaging allegedly internal communications that appeared to indicate that the club had flouted FFP rules. Uefa have insisted from the start that their evidence is not connected with the illegally-obtained Football Leaks material.

So what have they got?

Evans directly contradicts the initial statement from UEFA and public comments by Leterme that their investigation was based on publications in the media (namely Der Spiegel). As far as I know UEFA have never mentioned that their evidence is not connected to illegally-obtained material.

 

[waspish]

Seems absolutely impossible to me

Yep me too but his Scouse mate keeps teeing him up with tit bits! He is convinced that documentation will do us.

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Leterme said two months before investigation started that City could face ban. They always wanted us banned.

how you can even say anything about potential outcome before investigation has even started?

id be surprised if we lose.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

This is the point. A scoping document is integral to every investigation for a number of reasons one of which is to show that it isn't just a "fishing expedition". The fact that we asked for disclosure of the complete file which UEFA confirmed that they had given to us and then, presumably after we asked why there was no scoping document, UEFA produced one carries implications.

Either a) it was a "mistake" which is interesting because they would have to explain such an omission, hinting at incompetence, b) it was deliberately witheld because they didn't want us to see it or c) it didn't exist at the time we asked for it and was created afterwards. b) is suspicious and c) is fraudulent.

I doubt we'd ever be in a position to prove b) or c) but either way, it doesn't look great for UEFA because the best case scenario is serious ineptitude. It also muddies the waters as regards our duty and/or ability to co-operate with the enquiry.

I'll take a guess at C!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

How does a journo know what evidence UEFA have unless they're still leaking info?

He is still talking to his pal Parry who has the inside track. Parry has been one of his contacts for many years. Evans thinks we are all stupid. Parry was on the IC at the time of the original investigation.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

He mentioned it a bit back on the radio that it’s our own documentation that Uefa are going to do us on.

That's funny. Now you know he's just grasping. Any documents we will have provided them won't implicate ourselves!

Uefa and Evans can't say it is not about the Football Leak documents when the whole premise of reopening a case on us was due to the hack.

 

[KS55]

How does a journo know what evidence UEFA have unless they're still leaking info?

Uefa have said publically that it was something in the City documents, but did not elaborate. Is it a bluff? Have they misinterpreted said documents? Have we, god forbid, missed something?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

He did say before the original verdict that we would be getting a two year ban so he was obviously well briefed. He's a insufferable scouse phlegm chucker but he's been right before, just hope he's not right again.

It depends if the board at Klanfield are still in the loop?

They hacked our scouting base, what else could they have hacked and held on to?

 

[KS55]

It depends if the board at Klanfield are still in the loop?

They hacked our scouting base, what else could they have hacked and held on to?

Pep's shopping list.

 

[slbsn]

Worth reminding yourself of what was already settled in 2014 https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league

The idea that City go through that process, disclose documents and then find many years later (and co-incidentally shortly after Football Leaks) that UEFA comes across new documents from City that are so incriminating that they undermine the earlier settlement is simply not credible.

 

[SatOnTheWall]

He mentioned it a bit back on the radio that it’s our own documentation that Uefa are going to do us on.

Real documents with the actual numbers crossed out and UEFA-friendly ones written in their place in red crayon?

 

[BobbyBoy]

Worth reminding yourself of what was already settled in 2014 https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league

The idea that City go through that process, disclose documents and then find many years later (and co-incidentally shortly after Football Leaks) that UEFA comes across new documents from City that are so incriminating that they undermine the earlier settlement is simply not credible.

What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.

 

[nmc]

This is the point. A scoping document is integral to every investigation for a number of reasons one of which is to show that it isn't just a "fishing expedition". The fact that we asked for disclosure of the complete file which UEFA confirmed that they had given to us and then, presumably after we asked why there was no scoping document, UEFA produced one carries implications.

Either a) it was a "mistake" which is interesting because they would have to explain such an omission, hinting at incompetence, b) it was deliberately witheld because they didn't want us to see it or c) it didn't exist at the time we asked for it and was created afterwards. b) is suspicious and c) is fraudulent.

I doubt we'd ever be in a position to prove b) or c) but either way, it doesn't look great for UEFA because the best case scenario is serious ineptitude. It also muddies the waters as regards our duty and/or ability to co-operate with the enquiry.

I’m sure the City legal team will have asked for forensic evidence of when the said document was produced and details of each amendment. Cases like this can be won and lost in the detail.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

From the Evans article:

There has been a cloud over City’s spending since a website called Football Leaks revealed a cache of hacked emails that contained damaging allegedly internal communications that appeared to indicate that the club had flouted FFP rules. Uefa have insisted from the start that their evidence is not connected with the illegally-obtained Football Leaks material.

So what have they got?

As they've charged us with failure ot co-operate, then I guess they've got that. We'll see, but my understanding is that the bulk of their evidence is the Der Spiegel stuff.

 

[nmc]

What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.

The numbers given at the time and the numbers given now - will need to align with the numbers in the audited accounts.

 

[Crabbers]

What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.

I wondered this too... But then surely city wouldn't knowingly do that without thinking it would be an issue?