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

[TheThirdDeano]

Wtf it’s from today? I thought it started on the 6th.

Hope to god our lawyers were more on the ball!

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Surely journalists fact check their work?

Stop it, my ribs are hurting!

 

[Big Dave Watson]

If they ban us for 1 year we’ll win every domestic trophy, it will be unprecedented.... oh wait... :-)

If they ban us fir 1 year we may lose many of our trophies. It’s shit or bust.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

We are well and truly in the **** in the court of public opinion had talk sport on multiple ex managers and players talking of everyone leaving managers players. Then Rob Harris comes on and says we are trying to get off on a technicality of the emails being stolen and then saying how city fans seem to think they are being persecuted but look at all these other clubs who have been banned. Consensus in a lot of the media seems to be a reduction in ban. Basically ignoring what we actually said which is we are innocent

Rob Harris. The cnut’s cnut

 

[Ric]

 

[dadnlad]

first look at thread today
have Uefa taken their ball home yet, big kids like being back at school, im not playing if we can't win

 

[waspish]

The remote hearing, between #ManCity and UEFA lawyers, opened 07:00 GMT and is scheduled to last three days before closing on Wednesday evening.

CAS Secretary General, Matthieu Reeb: "The hearing has started well and the video conference is working well.”

 

[SatOnTheWall]

I think that's a different issue.
UEFA need to adhere to business/employment law, and their rules are subject to challenge if desired.

Clubs must adhere to UEFA regulations.

uefa also need to adhere to uefa regulations. And the law.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

As an arbitration service I think they may keep away from totally siding with one or the other. Handing down any ban is risky for UEFA - even if there is evidence to suggest it is appropriate - because court proceedings will be long and expensive and damaging to both sides and difficult to predict as it is sporting competition rules clashing with business law. I reckon they'll propose removing the ban and retaining a reduced fine so it isn't the final nail in the FFP coffin.

My understanding from Projectriver yesterday was that further legal challenge by City would be unlikely, so on that basis handing out a ban is of very little risk to UEFA.....indeed they’ve already done it!

 

[Newman Noggs]

CAS Secretary General, Matthieu Reeb: "The hearing has started well and the video conference is working well.”

Leaking already!!

 

[BringBackSwales]

uefa also need to adhere to uefa regulations. And the law.

Yes they are good at that, michel platini said so

 

[Boris Becker’s Backhand]

Come on City

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

What's the bet, if we start getting too much of an upper hand, then the video conferencing starts playing up or goes down altogether ;-)

 

[Penworthamblue]

first look at thread today
have Uefa taken their ball home yet, big kids like being back at school, im not playing if we can't win

They're having problems tying their shoelaces before they go apparently

 

[Shaelumstash]

No because City did provide the evidence of innocence and has stated so half a dozen times.

Yes but it's quite possible the evidence we have provided is our audited accounts. Which in itself is evidence of innocence.

The fact we appealed to CAS half way through the hearing shows clearly we were wary of the leaks and had no faith in the process.

I would hope we have more faith in the process at CAS, and there may well be more sensitive information we refused to provide to UEFA that we may well provide to CAS.

 

[Citizen Green]

Yes but it's quite possible the evidence we have provided is our audited accounts. Which in itself is evidence of innocence.

The fact we appealed to CAS half way through the hearing shows clearly we were wary of the leaks and had no faith in the process.

I would hope we have more faith in the process at CAS, and there may well be more sensitive information we refused to provide to UEFA that we may well provide to CAS.

Would that not work in UEFA's favour though? Surely they would argue that is prove we were withholding information from their investigation (lack of cooperation)

 

[nmc]

Would that not work in UEFA's favour though? Surely they would argue that is prove we were withholding information from their investigation (lack of cooperation)

Not if you had good reason to believe the (Sensitive) information was being systematically leaked to other UEFA members and in turn to the press.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Would that not work in UEFA's favour though? Surely they would argue that is prove we were withholding information from their investigation (lack of cooperation)

That would depend if CAS found that we were justified in the belief that the process was not confidential. As I recall, one of the planks of the early appeal was the unsatisfactory response of the IC to our concerns which appear to have been summarily dismissed. I think the earlier hearing described this as "worrisome". However, at that point they may only have had our side of the story so that doesn't mean much.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Would that not work in UEFA's favour though? Surely they would argue that is prove we were withholding information from their investigation (lack of cooperation)

My sense is we won't necessarily deny a lack of cooperation - of this accusation, we are guilty - but contextualise it as an unwillingness to share sensitive and highly confidential information with a recklessly leaky ship such as the UEFA IC. An issue which CAS has already stated they share our concerns about.

This will be part of painting a picture of the IC investigation as thoroughly compromised and untrustworthy from the off - therefore our actions were justified under the circumstances.

 

[oakiecokie]

Has anyone got the Zoom link for today`s meeting? :-)

Match day tickets only I`m afraid.