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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
projectriver said:
I think City are probably really feeling about 60%-65% confident of winning at CAS. No such process is guaranteed and even the best cases can lose. I'd say few cases have better than 70% certainty. The club are obviously not super confident because you can see how little we are doing in the transfer market - Chilwell is a perfect example. I think we will be very cautious until we have more certainty on the situation.

But likewise, I believe they are confident in the strength of their defence - the public statements are very bold and it seems inconceivable that Silverlake didn't get sight of a very strong legal opinion in advance of its investment. In fact its probable that CFG had to agree to a clause in the investment agreement that CFG had complied with laws, regulations etc. On the flipside, this probably also means that it is exposed to a sizeable claim (known as a warranty claim) from Silverlake in the event it is found to have breached by CAS.
Click to expand...

I am sure that Silverlake were concerned to ensure that nothing in City's accounts masked any illegal activities, but we are before CAS on Monday for breaches of regulations, which may well be unenforceable and not for breaches of the law. City's fortunes on the pitch and our reputation in the world of football shouldn't impact on the success of an arena at the Etihad campus. I suspect also that Silverlake are more interested in the possibility of venues in Bombay, Melbourne and New York, among others than a possible "local difficulty" with UEFA. Haven't Silverlake expressed their (complete) confidence in City?
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I am sure that Silverlake were concerned to ensure that nothing in City's accounts masked any illegal activities, but we are before CAS on Monday for breaches of regulations, which may well be unenforceable and not for breaches of the law. City's fortunes on the pitch and our reputation in the world of football shouldn't impact on the success of an arena at the Etihad campus. I suspect also that Silverlake are more interested in the possibility of venues in Bombay, Melbourne and New York, among others than a possible "local difficulty" with UEFA. Haven't Silverlake expressed their (complete) confidence in City?
Click to expand...
No I don't agree they would ignore breaches of sporting rules for the constituent clubs of CFG or sporting regulatory investigations. These are areas that go to value. City breaching and finding themselves with a 2 year ban and possible PL consequences are material and will inevitably impact at least 2 (and maybe more) years. City is currently where the vast majority of the value in the club resides - in a sum of the parts the arena at the Etihad campus is near irrelevant. In Silverlake terms, City is the key global franchise and is far more important than the value of a future club in Bombay, Melbourne or even, right now, NYC.
 
All will be revealed from Monday. No doubt there will be leaks. At present we can only speculate.

CAS can only consider some of the many legal arguments of the case presented to them potentially outlined on this thread based on evidence presented. We cannot expect a ruling on FFP, its legitimacy, how it has been applied or the morality let alone legality. This is why we took on top briefs to overturn the case of charges brought against City. UEFA have engaged a similarly high level legal team.

The priority is to win the appeal with CAS and overturn the UEFA ruling and punishment. Anything else is secondary.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
UEFA will resumably have the evidence they gathered in support of the original case back in 2014. We know that showed they thought the minor Abu Dhabi sponsorships were overvalued. We know they thought Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar were all related parties. Possibly this is what they're referring to.
Click to expand...

If City’s auditors don’t think they are related parties - how can UEFA? That’s absurd.
 
A week or so ago a sizable number of posters on this thread were in agreement that this whole thing was a charade cooked up between the club & Ceferin. The thinking was that actually we are allies against the common enemy, namely the G14 clubs. When the case against us was unceremoniously thrown out by CAS then Ceferin would be somehow be in a stronger position to push back against the cartel clubs.

This made no sense to me whatsoever & I assume it was just extreme wishful thinking & wild speculation?
 
Ric said:
Decent article from Marcotti on the case here. Seems pretty fair and balanced.
https://www.espn.com/football/blog-...ats-at-stake-for-city-and-financial-fair-play
Click to expand...
Yes a good read and unlike the Evans article in the independent, balanced and non of the usual bile which is directed at City. In an ideal world the ban will be overturned and we will be fully exonerated, but we all know this is not going to happen, thus as long as the punishment is overturned I will be happy.
 
Ardwick Green Blue said:
A week or so ago a sizable number of posters on this thread were in agreement that this whole thing was a charade cooked up between the club & Ceferin. The thinking was that actually we are allies against the common enemy, namely the G14 clubs. When the case against us was unceremoniously thrown out by CAS then Ceferin would be somehow be in a stronger position to push back against the cartel clubs.

This made no sense to me whatsoever & I assume it was just extreme wishful thinking & wild speculation?
Click to expand...
I am not sure that Ceferin is an ally of City but he is in a win win situation. If City win he can press on with his plans to change UEFA and his internal enemies are much weakened. He can blame CAS and Leterme for everything. If UEFA win then he gets the cartel clubs off his back and has still got scope to carry out his reforms. I think he is just a clever and pragmatic operator.
 
nmc said:
If City’s auditors don’t think they are related parties - how can UEFA? That’s absurd.
Click to expand...
It's not black and white. It can be a grey area. If Sheikh Mansour (who is certainly a related party) is chairman of one of the companies sponsoring us, that doesn't in itself mean the company is. It depends how much control he is deemed to have over both parties. One of City's non-executive directors is also a non-executive director of Etihad. But that still doesn't make them related parties.
 
BillyShears said:
I like it.

My only issue is this idea of “getting off on a technicality.” The way the rules are designed the whole thing is a minefield of technicalities. I think it’s highly unlikely there’ll be a judgement that will “prove” anything as conclusively as he’d like.
Click to expand...
If we get off for any reason at all the people in the cheap seats are going to say that regardless. Where I come from getting off on a technicality just means whatever you did wasn't illegal.
 
chesterbells said:
We wouldn’t have much of a thread to read in that case though.
Click to expand...
What's the issue here? All I'm asking is for some basis of fact/evidence if someone predicts an outcome rather than "I think we'll get a one year ban" without reasoning
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top