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.
If one believes that among the main goals of UEFA is to maintain the status-quo within football they really have to nail us this time. The fact that we have been tired as I understand it largely as a result of documents illegally obtained suggests how deep the corruption runs, do I have any faith in the CAS process, the Swiss courts or indeed the British courts if it had been able to go that way, none whatsoever, the legal system is largely an illusion and has little or nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with keeping the powerful powerful and keeping those that would rock the boat tied up 50 miles from the coast!
 
projectriver said:
Not much I agree with here I'm afraid. UEFA did not have to act on the leaked emails. If that is all they have they are a weak basis for a charge and a finding. Secondly, they could easily have said, "these matters were investigated in 2014, we believed City inflated sponsorship revenue and entered into a settlement agreement and settlement regime where we monitored them closely for 2 more years. Accordingly, these matters are now closed. If we find evidence that this occurred in the periods now under review we will take action." That would have been the end of it.

City could have accepted a ban and still can. Indeed if they thought they were going to fail at CAS they would be offering all sorts to get the ban down to one year. A 2 year ban is not double a one year ban - even more so following Covid. To miss the 2020/21 CL is no big deal especially if a settlement blocks any PL consequences. Going to CAS loses control of the articulation of the breach. It is risky.

So we could get a reduced ban from CAS but still be in a very poor position with the PL.

As I have said over and over, the procedural failings of UEFA are not now relevant to CAS. CAS will cure them - the case will be heard on its merits both in law (ie the rules of UEFA and Swiss law where relevant) and in the substantive matters. Any comments CAS makes about UEFA whilst finding against City would be a pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
If we win on a technical issue with the investigation/procedure point won't it still give the Prem a green light to take a shot at us?
 
pavelsrnicek said:
In most cases it is possible to compromise but in this instance I can’t see how. It is as close to a zero sum game as regards to a ban.

The Football Leaks created a situation where UEFA had to act. The outcome had to produce a ban in order for FFP to have any teeth. City couldn’t accept a ban. So in order to protect FFP they banned City for an unprecedented 2 years.

If CAS decides the punishment was disproportionate and we get a lesser ban then at least. If CAS finds issues with the UEFA administration of law (whether breaching the original settlement, time limits or issues of fair procedure) and the appeal is upheld then the principles of FFP aren’t the issue but procedural law. UEFA can hold their hands up and say they tried.

In short the leaks/ Der Spiegel article created a situation where no real compromise was possible.
Click to expand...

Two seasons is not unprecedented, it is the standard. Every club punished fot FFP breaches got 2 seasons. Some had it reducesld to 1. but 2 is not a man city specific punishment.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
For most of the time period relating to the UEFA allegations the Premier League didn't even have FFP in place. I think the suggestion it would take backdated action against City based on alleged offences in a totally different competition (whatever the licensing rules say) is fanciful. This angle has been promoted by the usual suspects in the media who hate City and our owners but I believe it's wishful thinking.
I don't believe that in the middle of the biggest financial crisis football has ever seen the Premier League would go to war with City's owners, arguably the biggest external investors in English football apart from the broadcasters.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and all valid. However they would be compelled to loom surely. or at least be seen to look.

Lets face it, if this was liverpool and roles reversed, and it their outcome a negative one, would we not think it only fair a review carried out?

As yoh say, timewise anf amount wise we would probably fine. But thd issue of allegedly submitting false accounts, who knows where that can spiral off to
 
Apologies if this has been asked before, I've not followed this too closely as it's dragged on too long, but do we have knowledge of the detail of this hearing?

I know there are 3 judges, 1 picked by us, 1 by UEFA and one by CAS themselves, presumably this is from a named pool of CAS arbiters?
How does the "presentation" of the cases work? Is it similar to criminal justice system in that the prosecution presents their evidence and the defence attempts to rebut? Or is it both sides present a written argument and the judges raise questions?
Is/has all evidence been disclosed? or can UEFA hit us with a curve ball? Has our defence been disclosed?

Interesting times
 
projectriver said:
I've deleted the rumour - speculating if it true and if true why, its fruitless. Lets assume its bollocks.

BTW I never suggested it was a late decision - there is almost no chance it was a late change. If he took the brief in March he'd be on it in June. If he didn't take it originally, the original story was wrong but wasn't properly fact checked at the time.
Click to expand...

I think some people in the thread read far too much into his supposed appointment anyway. It would be wrong to equate him not taking it with us not having a good chance or indeed him taking it with us having a good chance.

The case he lost for Sheikh Mohammed looks from what journalists have reported to be an absolute hiding to nothing from day 1 with no real chance of winning.
 
domalino said:
I think people would be wrong to equate him not taking it with us not having a good chance or indeed him taking it with us having a good chance.

The case he lost for Sheikh Mohammed looks from what journalists have reported to be an absolute hiding to nothing from day 1 with no real chance of winning.
Click to expand...

Correct. He was simply brought in to try and maintain the injunction preventing the press revealing the details of the case.
 
Having read all the posts over the last months and a few hours before D Day I am putting my complete faith and trust in TH. Thank you Jim for all your perception. Come on City.!
 
flook said:
Apologies if this has been asked before, I've not followed this too closely as it's dragged on too long, but do we have knowledge of the detail of this hearing?

I know there are 3 judges, 1 picked by us, 1 by UEFA and one by CAS themselves, presumably this is from a named pool of CAS arbiters?
How does the "presentation" of the cases work? Is it similar to criminal justice system in that the prosecution presents their evidence and the defence attempts to rebut? Or is it both sides present a written argument and the judges raise questions?
Is/has all evidence been disclosed? or can UEFA hit us with a curve ball? Has our defence been disclosed?

Interesting times
Click to expand...

The pool for CAS is huge, over a hundred I think. It's possible that a smaller pool operates for specific subjects.
 
Time nearly upon us, our great club against the established corruption that dwells within the governing body of UEFA, and the cartel fuckers who have been crying like mard-arses and throwing their toys out the pram since 2008 onwards.....no doubt they will be waiting with baited breath on the next 3 days

- just as we the fans of our club will be.

I will be hoping and praying that we have everything in place to quash this nonsense and this instigated attack on our club, owner and fans once and for all - then we watch the haters squirm and crawl under their fucking rocks

CTID
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Ha. No mate. It just grinds my gears when I see posters suggesting they would accept a reduced ban to a year.

That's a verdict of guilty. We are not guilty.

If we are found guilty, it will start little fires elsewhere.

I don't see why people can't see that?
Click to expand...

Tolm is bob on.

Fuck that.

We are innocent and nothing less than that will do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top