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

[eastmanc]

Come on you blues.

 

[kippaxwarrior]

Just as an aside, I’m curious to know what the 63 people who voted ‘Other’ on the poll expect to happen? A 3 year ban maybe? Public flogging for the club officials?

A stoning BUT NO women

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

What's the odds on Balotelli showing up at the hearing on the 10th?

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

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.

@projectriver said yesterday that procedural issues at the IC/AC would be cured by CAS and are therefore no longer relevant. Would I be right in assuming that we would still be bringing up the leaks etc as they may be relevant as to why we may have not cooperated by withholding sensitive information.

 

[Boris Becker’s Backhand]

Just as an aside, I’m curious to know what the 63 people who voted ‘Other’ on the poll expect to happen? A 3 year ban maybe? Public flogging for the club officials?

Some kind of piffling fine I expect

 

[Shaelumstash]

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)

Yeh that’s my concern mate.

I’m not a lawyer so don’t know the technicalities of that.

If the initial trial was in a legitimate court of law, I don’t think City’s argument that we had no faith in the process would be sufficient explanation for us not to provide evidence.

But seen as UEFA is not a court of law and they clearly were leaking things to the press, and we did try to appeal to CAS on that basis halfway through the process, I don’t know if that gives more legitimacy to our claim.

We’d have to prove that there were leaks and that the entire UEFA process was flawed from the start, which could be a challenge, even for Lord Pannick.

 

[blueinsa]

I’m not sure that there will be much reporting tbh, given that it’s not a public hearing.

Wont stop Delaney and co on twitter offering a running commentary on how UEFA lawyers have had City on the ropes all day offering compelling evidence of wrongdoing whilst we had nothing to counter.

 

[MCC]

What's the odds on Balotelli showing up at the hearing on the 10th?

About the same as Gazza turning up with a fishing rod, some chicken and a few cans.

 

[bluemanchester]

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!

I think City are prepared to take it further if CAS uphold the ban. Khaldoons email about spending 30 or 50 million on lawyers was not bluster in my opinion, but a statement of fact.

 

[bluemanchester]

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 ;-)

Like VAR did at Livarpool this season. Quite possible.