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

[domalino]

I suggest you look it up

I did.

"without the surrounding words or circumstances and so not fully understandable."

"If a statement or remark is quoted out of context, the circumstances in which it was said are not correctly reported, so that it seems to mean something different from the meaning that was intended."
​

Something can't be out of context if it's not something that's been written/spoken to begin with.

 

[Shaelumstash]

These days emails are the most critical evidence in most commercial cases. And the ones leaked from Pearce just the sort of unhelpful ones parties hate to see.

That's not been my experience.

I've been involved with a lengthy litigation in an EU country and my experience has been that emails point you in the direction of the evidence, but the most pertinent evidence in court is accounts, financial statements and bank transfers.

"Follow the money", as they say.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I agree. The statement from City described them as "out of context" emails, not "fabricated". I am following on the assumption that they are genuine.

Didn't the club also say that the intention was clearly to damage the club's reputation? If we try to read anything into that statement we might assume that the context has been doctored to suggest Sheikh Mansour disguised investment, something which the club's irrefutable evidence can show is not the case.

 

[SilverFox2]

Yes and are very likely the "irrefutable evidence" City keep referring to.

Would they consider this to be a good possibility without the bank statement though. In other words is strong suspicion sufficient grounds for CAS to agree with UEFA without definite proof?

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Daft example but below is how a redacted email could be taken out of context

Was actually

This all falls to shit if uefa have seen unredacted emails and their interpretation is not in doubt.

Please ignore if bollocks

 

[slbsn]

That's not been my experience.

I've been involved with a lengthy litigation in an EU country and my experience has been that emails point you in the direction of the evidence, but the most pertinent evidence in court is accounts, financial statements and bank transfers.

"Follow the money", as they say.

That relates to a very particular type of case. My point was most - thats why disclosure exercises are so extensive in commercial cases. But not sure this is a debate for this forum

 

[hihosilva]

I did.

"without the surrounding words or circumstances and so not fully understandable."

"If a statement or remark is quoted out of context, the circumstances in which it was said are not correctly reported, so that it seems to mean something different from the meaning that was intended."
​

Something can't be out of context if it's not something that's been written/spoken to begin with.

misrepresent the meaning of an utterance, an action, or a report thereof by omitting or altering the original context in which it was spoken or done. You have to be very careful what you say when you're a politician, because the media are all too happy to take anything you say out of context.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Confidence is a funny thing.

I think that finding out the Executive Council was indirectly funding our sponsorship by giving Etihad money so they could afford it, plus the very antagonistic nature of the emails will have angered a lot of people at UEFA to the point where I could see a bunch of people in the Investigatory Chamber like Parry and Leterme just deciding they were going to fuck us, and ignore anything we said at the time or any evidence we presented.

However where my confidence hits the rocks is that Rodrigues de Cunha seems like a pretty serious operator and a very experienced judge. So I find it hard to believe he would take part in railroading us without a proper case.

However, we do know that Leterme & co. have fucked over de Cunha before by deceiving him to get stuff pushed through. So if that happened I could understand how we end up at CAS with a case that's easy to win.

Otherwise, with the AC and its panel of judges given the full facts to make their decision, I can't get confident about 3 more judges reaching a totally different verdict.

I'm not certain, but isn't the AC in UEFA totally reliant on what the IC provide them with?

So, essentially City can provide evidence to the IC, and then it is for the IC to decide whether to pass it up the AC and then the AC passes judgement based on the IC report.

It's the equivalent of the CPS investigating a crime, then passing it to the judge and you not being able to defend yourself in court.

Rodrigues de Cunha may well have just been given a stitch up case by Leterme and had no choice but to find against us.

I'm not certain on the process at UEFA, but from what I've read, that seems to be how it operates. No wonder we had no faith in the process.

 

[blue oli]

Nothing to see here fo a month, some informed speculation and guesswork and some outright daft stuff too.

No one apart from each side and the legal teams have ANY idea of what’s being presented as evidence and neither side know what the final call by CAS will be.

Personally I’m seeing action taken, rushed by the IC/AC, off the back of potentially un-contextualised emails (with half redacted ) die to the time statute running out.

Cerafin is obviously nervous but the AC are highly qualified guys who must think they have something.

Looking forward to picking up on this next month when we actually know something.

 

[Lkzerinho]

Nothing to see here fo a month, some informed speculation and guesswork and some outright daft stuff too.

No one apart from each side and the legal teams have ANY idea of what’s being presented as evidence and neither side know what the final call by CAS will be.

Personally I’m seeing action taken, rushed by the IC/AC, off the back of potentially un-contextualised emails (with half redacted ) die to the time statute running out.

Cerafin is obviously nervous but the AC are highly qualified guys who must think they have something.

Looking forward to picking up on this next month when we actually know something.

I think we will get a sense in the next week or two what the decision will look like

yes it won't be official till CAS announces it, but I like the noise that has been coming out of the club in the media, they seem very confident

 

[cityzen81]

I tend to agree with @Prestwich_Blue about not being totally confident in this case. As he says Rodrigues de Cunha seems like a highly qualified and respected judge and I can’t imagine him passing down such a heavy punishment without merit and with the possibility of also damaging his credibility.

Do we know if he is the one who came up with the final outcome for City? I thought the IC had recommended a 1 year ban initially?

 

[HelloCity]

Daft example but below is how a redacted email could be taken out of context

Was actually

This all falls to shit if uefa have seen unredacted emails and their interpretation is not in doubt.

Please ignore if bollocks

You might want to delete this, mate.

UEFA will use it at CAS as more evidence gathered against us.

 

[petrusha]

But I don't think UEFA will be satisfied by a purely legal view of this. They're out to prove that we received disguised owner investment and we used that to inflate actual sponsorship revenue.

I posted this a day or two back, but the irony is that the sponsorship was allegedly inflated in the sense that we received a much greater amount than that the sponsor actually paid itself. But UEFA's appraisers found that the overall value of the sponsorship was fair, so the purported ADUG owner funding can have only ensured that MCFC received an appropriate sum for its main sponsorship agreement. Based on the expert advice provided to UEFA, we could legitimately have expected to receive a similar amount from a different sponsor without ADUG having to tip up any funds. In other words, if we properly understand what's been alleged, there's been no real financial benefit to City.

I'll be devastated if this case goes against us given the detrimental effect it will have on the club's future. However, I'll also probably also manage a wry smile, because to manage to land ourselves with a ruinous ban for cheating the rules when this happened in pursuance of a scheme that was never aimed at benefiting the club frankly seems like the ultimate 'Typical City' moment.

 

[slbsn]

It is worth a quick look at the documents themselves to illustrate a couple of points. https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278 First, whichever funding structure was used it looks likely that Etihad cash was put into the club via the correct entity (see page 4). Both options put forward by the CFO had money coming from Etihad to City. Likewise on page 3, the club were very aware that the actual payment flow had to come from the relevant contractual entity.

On context, page 1 is a perfect example. The email is obviously true and is largely unredacted. But it is pre-contractual, how many other emails exist, what did the final deal look like, what did the rest of the thread say, when was the actual contract signed (if ever) etc etc. I do not believe you can conclude anything from one email in a thread like that. We shall see.

 

[Phil1]

I tend to agree with @Prestwich_Blue about not being totally confident in this case. As he says Rodrigues de Cunha seems like a highly qualified and respected judge and I can’t imagine him passing down such a heavy punishment without merit and with the possibility of also damaging his credibility.

Do we know if he is the one who came up with the final outcome for City? I thought the IC had recommended a 1 year ban initially?

I might have missed a few of his posts recently but I’m sure PB was once very confident that we would win this case?
Although on saying that he’s also sure we’ve got enough dirt on Liverpool to destroy their season and I don’t believe that’s true in the slightest.

 

[Coatigan]

Exactly. Those emails are evidence of a conversation, but not of what was actually done. I sent my wife a text last week that I was going to the cinema with my friend Tom. I actually went to the pub with my secret lover. But I have proof that I am totally innocent, its on wife's phone !

Unless derSpeigl get a hold of this post!

then even the cinema ticket, a full account of the fim or witnesses will help!

 

[Sir peace frog]

.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I am speaking blind but those are just 2 of the hurdles. Beyond that UEFA have to make good serious allegations including, most likely, that our audited accounts are false on the basis of a few pre-contractual emails from Simon Pearce

Makes you wonder how Simon Pearce is still in position. I remain certain we will be cleared but it doesn't alter the fact that a few unprofessional emails have caused huge problems for CFG. Senior people, expecially lawyers, always like to say: "It's not personal. It's just business."
But in the real world personal stuff matters. The joke in one email about the death of the UEFA official must have gone down like a lead balloon with some of his colleagues never mind: "We can do what we want."
Whatever the outcome I hope we as a business have tightened up on our email protocols and cybersecurity. For all I despise UEFA I still believe this whole farce was a self-inflicted wound.

 

[oakiecokie]

Makes you wonder how Simon Pearce is still in position. I remain certain we will be cleared but it doesn't alter the fact that a few unprofessional emails have caused huge problems for CFG. Senior people, expecially lawyers, always like to say: "It's not personal. It's just business."
But in the real world personal stuff matters. The joke in one email about the death of the UEFA official must have gone down like a lead balloon with some of his colleagues never mind: "We can do what we want."
Whatever the outcome I hope we as a business have tightened up on our email protocols and cybersecurity. For all I despise UEFA I still believe this whole farce was a self-inflicted wound.

Well I hope we don`t end up with a fucking big scar to show for it later.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I posted this a day or two back, but the irony is that the sponsorship was allegedly inflated in the sense that we received a much greater amount than that the sponsor actually paid itself. But UEFA's appraisers found that the overall value of the sponsorship was fair, so the purported ADUG owner funding can have only ensured that MCFC received an appropriate sum for its main sponsorship agreement. Based on the expert advice provided to UEFA, we could legitimately have expected to receive a similar amount from a different sponsor without ADUG having to tip up any funds. In other words, if we properly understand what's been alleged, there's been no real financial benefit to City.

I'll be devastated if this case goes against us given the detrimental effect it will have on the club's future. However, I'll also probably also manage a wry smile, because to manage to land ourselves with a ruinous ban for cheating the rules when this happened in pursuance of a scheme that was never aimed at benefiting the club frankly seems like the ultimate 'Typical City' moment.

Interesting view but I'd argue that point is moot Peter, in the sense that it only works if we've agreed Etihad is a related party, which renders the question of who paid largely irrelevant, as long as it's fair value.

I'm still of the belief that if what Der Spiegel published was the best they had, then it wasn't good enough. We'll see.