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.
I'm expecting a reduction but not exoneration if only because it allows for dissent amongst the judges. For a clear yes or no it would take a unanimous decision and "irrefutable" evidence one way or the other. Compromise makes a panel decision easier to achieve.
 
Looking at Rob harris article on AP cannot believe he writes such rubbish sticking to the line that our defence is that the emails are hacked but the snide dig at the fact we conduct in house interviews rather than press conferences. I find that really confusing one other than the publicly traded sports clubs (which report more often) how much access do we get to CEOs or chairmen of clubs ? How often do they do in house interviews let alone public press conferences ? Even if other clubs do these how could we do this on this matter given the sensitive legal nature where responses and perhaps even questions have to be restricted. I think city use to not do anything at the end of the year in terms of interviews with the Chairmen. What did we use to do ? Any idea what other clubs do ?
Khaldoon has done interviews with overseas business media but sensibly doesn't do many with the UK press. I can't think of any circumstances where he would ever do an interview with a biased moron like Harris.
 
I had also forgotten how much Simon Cliff was involved in some of the contentious emails and the aggressive responses to UEFA. It was he who made the joke about the death of the UEFA official. Whatever the truth of what happened I still believe that Simon Pearce and Simon Cliff did not do City any favours with their cack-handed approach to serious business matters. I would like to see them both removed from CFG whether we win or lose. However it looks like Soriano is being lined up as the fall guy if the decision goes against us.
The whole farce could have been avoided and we played into the hands of our enemies.
Can't see them sacking Pearce, tho' he deserves it. We had previous with emails showing disrespect and Cook was sacked. Cliff should have known better and must go. If we lose, I expect Soriano will want to fall on his sword. Shame really, because he is talented at the commercial game, but his statements put his honour at stake.
God, I hope we win.
Still nervously confident.
C'mon City.
 
From my own recollection, it was Aabar, Etisalat and Visit Abu Dhabi, which we're deemed related parties and subsequently we agreed not to increase those deals over a certain number of years?

I don't believe Etihad was deemed a related party.

That was what I thought, I seem to remember there being a question over the value of 1 of them and it was only £3mill a year. The issue from the leak was emails stating it was directly paid to city from Mansours bank account.
 
Pure guesswork on my part but maybe the Etihad books really are the key to all this. It could be that City were relying on Etihad’s statement of no wrongdoing during the investigation, along with perhaps some bank statements showing where the money came from into the club. Maybe UEFA weren’t satisfied and wanted to see more, ie: Etihad’s books, and Etihad politely told them to piss off because that’s none of UEFA’s business. UEFA then think that we have something to hide, dish out the punishment, so Etihad throw their books open at the CAS appeal.
 
I'm expecting a reduction but not exoneration if only because it allows for dissent amongst the judges. For a clear yes or no it would take a unanimous decision and "irrefutable" evidence one way or the other. Compromise makes a panel decision easier to achieve.
Surely 2-1 is a win. If 2 are convinced, surely.
 
Pure guesswork on my part but maybe the Etihad books really are the key to all this. It could be that City were relying on Etihad’s statement of no wrongdoing during the investigation, along with perhaps some bank statements showing where the money came from into the club. Maybe UEFA weren’t satisfied and wanted to see more, ie: Etihad’s books, and Etihad politely told them to piss off because that’s none of UEFA’s business. UEFA then think that we have something to hide, dish out the punishment, so Etihad throw their books open at the CAS appeal.

If that was their train of thought then they are thicker than i thought. Etihad are no more obliged to open their books for CAS than they are for UEFA
 
Thing is, if ADUG hadn't had come along I've no doubts that our league would have gone the same way with United dominating it yearly.

We really opened the gates.
Absolutely. Chelsea and then City saved English football from itself. United won 13 out of 20 Premier Leagues. They had an income at least six times higher than their nearest rivals and no one has ever batted an eyelid even though their longest-running sponsor is Saudi Telecom and they have £500m of debt. Their glory years are repeated relentlessly on SKY TV without any caveats.
 
4 years ago Pannick & Monica Carss-Frisk defended the ex-PM of Qatar

"Lead QC charged more than £400,000 to defend ex-PM of Qatar in case alleging he was linked to torture of British citizen

Hamad bin Jassim, known as HBJ, had hired David Pannick, Britain’s most prominent human rights Queen’s counsel, to head his defence team. Lord Pannick shot to fame in the 1980s when he appeared for the Sunday Times in the Spycatcher case and has since acted for the Queen, and defended the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the rights of gay soldiers.

Court documents show Pannick charged £407,250 for a defence involving a two-day trial, which he did not attend. His colleague Monica Carss-Frisk QC, who did appear, put in a fee for £228,150.

At these rates of pay, Pannick would appear to be more expensive to hire than Jonathan Sumption, who was paid almost £8m – the highest fee in British legal history – for defending the Chelsea football club owner, Roman Abramovich."
 
The New York Times may get some info soon. Did it go well for his mates in Uefa?
Panja reports
" Unofficially, Uefa are quietly confident that they have beaten those cheating Etihad twats"
OR "I have heard nothing but shares in candle makers have risen sharply".
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top