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.
BobbyBoy said:
No what I'm trying to say is Eithad pleading the poor man who need government assistance on one hand and front loading unnecessary payments on the other is a bad look. The front loading part may have been someone speculating (PB I think).
Click to expand...
Etihad aren't pleading anything. Everyone knows that Etihad have been struggling financially for years.

The terms of the etihad deal have never been made public. It's possible that UEFA think we've been fiddling the Etihad deal so that at one time it said X was due, and now they have strong suggestion that Y was paid but we're getting into the realm of guesswork here, and we can prove nothing.

I do think that the Etihad deal must be at the heart of the UEFA case as it's the only substantial UAE sponsorship deal but I don't find the email trail damning in of itself. UEFA may have other evidence. I think they must unless the UEFA AC hearing was a complete farce.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Why is it unlikely that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal? The hacked emails suggest he did exactly that and City have never denied their authenticity, merely their context. And having looked at them again yesterday I’m really struggling to see how they might have been taken out of context as claimed. They come from senior members of the City hierarchy and contain very precise instruction on the movement of money between ADUG and Etihad. If we’re going to take this ban down, then it seems (to my untrained eye) that it’ll have to be on one of the regulatory/technical/whatever you want to call them, grounds that Projectriver outlined in that 93:20 podcast he did
Click to expand...
Perhaps the very next email was 'apologies, I meant ADEC, not ADUG'.

That's the problem with looking at one email out of possibly hundreds. City may not have denied their authenticity, but they never confirmed them either. They just rightly refused to comment on them.
 
Centurions said:
Perhaps the very next email was 'apologies, I meant ADEC, not ADUG'.

That's the problem with looking at one email out of possibly hundreds. City may not have denied their authenticity, but they never confirmed them either. They just rightly refused to comment on them.
Click to expand...

Yep that auto correct is a bummer.
 
BobbyBoy said:
It was claimed earlier in the thread that Etihad may have front loaded payments to suit City's cash flow requirements and it was stated it would make no difference at what stage the money was paid once it was the right amount within the contract period. That isn't really compatible with a struggling business that needs propping up by the state. Bringing forward financial obligations wouldn't be considered normal, especially to an unrelated party.
Click to expand...
Etihad at the time was not a normal business. They lost millions in unwise acquisitions and could not meet any of their obligations without huge gov support. An insolvent sponsor may be why that email conversation took place. Embarrassing, but not damning.
 
I think that amidst all the complications of this issue it's basically quite simple.
Unless UEFA can provide solid evidence that a ban is justified then CAS will have little option but to rule in our favour. If they do come up with said evidence of serious wrongdoing then we're in the shit.
Hopefully what Khaldoon & Sorriano have been telling us all along hasn't been a huge smokescreen.
 
BobbyBoy said:
No what I'm trying to say is Eithad pleading the poor man who need government assistance on one hand and front loading unnecessary payments on the other is a bad look. The front loading part may have been someone speculating (PB I think).
Click to expand...

A bad look for Etihad, maybe, but not a bad look for City. And frankly, I think all of us on here are only really arsed about City clearing their name. If they can prove there’s no wrongdoing and win the appeal that’s all that matters to us in all this. Beyond that, I don’t think any of us give much of a shit about Etihad’s finances!
 
Citizen Green said:
Der Speigel

“Tradition-rich clubs that didn't want to sell no longer stood much of a chance against the nouveau riche and their financial doping.”

Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
Funny, Bayern continue to cherry pick every german club of their best players and continue to make the german league a total farce. Their arrogance and ****yness on every level lives strong.
 
Citizen Green said:
Der Speigel

“Tradition-rich clubs that didn't want to sell no longer stood much of a chance against the nouveau riche and their financial doping.”

Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
Tradition rich clubs that in their greed and quest for power created the premier league and received untold riches from selling the product get upset when others jump on the bandwagon.
 
Citizen Green said:
Der Speigel

“Tradition-rich clubs that didn't want to sell no longer stood much of a chance against the nouveau riche and their financial doping.”

Jesus Christ
Click to expand...

Yup, massively up their own arses. The ludicrous inverted snobbery is part of the reason I won’t watch the Bundesliga
 
the winding up today and then the wait ?? and like i said earlier uefa have a planned meeting on the 17th of june and i believe they think its not turntable case and city will lose or settle for a less and reduced punishment ??
 
willipp said:
Funny, Bayern continue to cherry pick every german club of their best players and continue to make the german league a total farce. Their arrogance and ****yness on every level lives strong.
Click to expand...

Part of any cease fire deal in 1945 should have included the fucking disbanding of this set of twats.

Seriously disappointed in Churchills lack of foresight and i want his statue torn down.
 
Marvin said:
So you're arguing that what Etihad paid city was not in accordance with the contract and that City just inflated it to suit circumstances at the time?

The simple answer to that is it depends what was in the contract. UEFA don't appear to me to have a case within the body of the emails. They have a case to ask questions but any city fan can immediately come back with a retort of explanation of what might have happened. It depends on what the evidence says. I expect some amount of cronyism in a state ruled by a royal family but that does not amount to guilt imo.

The rest of the football world never tried to look at it from City's angle so of course they saw these emails as completely damning. They are imo the actions of a club who have just seen UEFA rip the carpet from under them when UEFA moved the FFP goalposts away (they changed the way they were asssessing FFP midway through a review period).
Click to expand...

Well put Marvin and squares with my thinking. We have to trust the club when they say they’ve done nothing wrong (until such a time as UEFA can categorically prove otherwise), and I find it difficult to see why so many prominent figures at the club would be risking their reputations in being so bullish about our innocence if we were guilty of wrongdoing. That said, as much as I’m trusting the club on this, like you I can see exactly why UEFA would want to ask City questions about the content of the e-mails.
 
Funny how things work out. If Covid hadn't happened, we'd have been waiting until August for the decision and been fucked completely in the transfer window.

As it is, they're talking about shifting the window to August-October.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top