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

[richards30]

Stick Together, trust the Owners, they have done everything they can, against a backdrop of deceit. My support is unwavering, regardless of what happens, and I believe the majority of City fans are like me, they support the club through thick and thin, ban or no ban it doesn't matter, we Stick Together, we fight to the end.

hence why we need to go after UEFA once and for all!!

 

[Centurions]

This is a distinct possibility in my view.
Our owners are International Businessmen first and Football men a distant second.
The way they have established the CFG has gone way over the heads of the footballing world.

So when they say they have done nothing wrong and are absolutely innocent I think they are definitely speaking from their Business point of view.
All big Businesses look for loop holes and use that to their advantage I am not sure a Monopoly like uefa really understand this and have struggled to keep up with our owners thinking.
This is why such a blunt tool as FFP has been shown up for what it is as they have tried to use it as a way to curtail City.
FFP has been crudely altered because uefa have never had the Business Acumen to get ahead of our Owners.
This is why I believe we could be found guilty because of uefas obvious desire to stop us and their total lack of "Real World" Business knowledge.

But it's CAS reviewing the evidence now, not UEFA. There was mention of CAS bringing in outside experts, perhaps this was to help CAS understand certain points of our defence?

Edit: From a business perspective that is.

 

[Centurions]

The points on limitation, jurisdiction, enforceability of settlement are not mere procedural matters - these are matters of the application of the rules. Thats not the same thing. Its very clear City will run both legal arguments of this type and substantive arguments (evaluation of the so called "irrefutable" evidence) . Any allegations relating to whether the IC/AC was fair or acting in good faith are now irrelevant as CAS looks de novo (afresh).

Whilst it is completely true, nobody outside the parties know the full case, we can discuss it with reference to what we do know. Like every topic footballing or otherwise.

We will see.

I'm not sure that's entirely true, CAS have already berated UEFA for their conduct and trustworthiness. The could very well suggest some serious investigation and reorganisation at UEFA (even if they can't enforce it).

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Most of the slides DO use ADUG for "additional funding" (https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278). I know you feel differently on the point. I remain of the view that in this context and taking the situation and the documents together it's "clearly" Sheikh Mansour and we'd be being disingenuous and evasive to argue differently.

It's not clear though. It's certainly possible but there's a clear link between the Executive Council, which Is headed by 'HH', and the Etihad sponsorship. That document is the one certainty we have. And it says, if I recall correctly, that the EC "covers" the Etihad sponsorship. What we don't know is how it did that. Did it give the money to Etihad, who then passed it to City, or did it go via ADUG, along with Etihad's own contribution?

It's not something I've thought about before as I'd assumed from that Booz Allen presentation that the route was AD Exco -> Etihad -> City. But in the light of the Der Spiegel emails it's entirely possible that the money was routed from ExCo to ADUG for all the sponsorships, where it was added to the contribution from the sponsors themselves, then split up into the requisite streams and sent to City as separate remittances, in line with the individual sponsorship contracts. I've been saying "Why would ADUG suddenly pick up the sponsorship funding when ADEC were previously providing it?" but the new reading of events, with ADUG collecting the money, would answer that question.

UEFA's case seems to be mainly based on the fact that ADUG were topping up the relatively small amounts that were being contributed by the respective sponsors. In my view, for our evidence to be "irrefutable" in that case, we have to be able to demonstrate that not a single penny originated from ADUG and they were simply the mechanism for collecting sponsorship revenues from other parties and distributing those.

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

I've just Googled 'who is HH Abu Dhabi' and the hits come back as :- H.H Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

I know it may seem trivial to us, but isn't that as much to do with people's ignorance on how to address people in this particular culture ?

Maybe a Google employee was one of the expert witnesses in various countries ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yes, Karen , I have. My feeling towards the club will never change.
But if it emerges that Soriano has deceived us fans or has just dropped a huge bollock, then he has to go. Other reforms in the club will be needed and I will expect them pronto.
City is the club I have supported for over 60 years. That will never change. I will forgive a naughty child.

I very much doubt Soriano, despite being the CEO of City Football Group, had much to do with this. He didn't arrive until late 2012 for one thing, when all these arrangements were already in place.

 

[BillyShears]

Do you think the ADUG statement re CAS for a start of proceedings was indicative of a plan for both outcomes or simply a bold statement of a certain win.?

I think I've said this before, but our approach has been shit or bust since the first Der Spiegel leaks. We've refused to engage with anyone on or off the record. We've simply said "we're not commenting on out of context/stolen materials". Which is fine. But once the CL ban came down, the game totally changed. At that point I would've expected us to sit down with UEFA and find a route out of this without anymore negative press.

However we seem to have doubled down on how innocent we are since the ban came down. Now notwithstanding my personal feeling about the rights/wrongs of FFP, it's a bold stance for us to take. You won't find a judge/lawyer on the planet that will tell you a case is ever 100%. We're dealing with complex matters and in the end it's going to be up to the interpretation of the CAS judges.

Shit or bust.

 

[slbsn]

It's not clear though. It's certainly possible but there's a clear link between the Executive Council, which Is headed by 'HH', and the Etihad sponsorship. That document is the one certainty we have. And it says, if I recall correctly, that the EC "covers" the Etihad sponsorship. What we don't know is how it did that. Did it give the money to Etihad, who then passed it to City, or did it go via ADUG, along with Etihad's own contribution?

It's not something I've thought about before as I'd assumed from that Booz Allen presentation that the route was AD Exco -> Etihad -> City. But in the light of the Der Spiegel emails it's entirely possible that the money was routed from ExCo to ADUG for all the sponsorships, where it was added to the contribution from the sponsors themselves, then split up into the requisite streams and sent to City as separate remittances, in line with the individual sponsorship contracts. I've been saying "Why would ADUG suddenly pick up the sponsorship funding when ADEC were previously providing it?" but the new reading of events, with ADUG collecting the money, would answer that question.

UEFA's case seems to be mainly based on the fact that ADUG were topping up the relatively small amounts that were being contributed by the respective sponsors. In my view, for our evidence to be "irrefutable" in that case, we have to be able to demonstrate that not a single penny originated from ADUG and they were simply the mechanism for collecting sponsorship revenues from other parties and distributing those.

This is not relevant in my mind. They can't provide "irrefutable" evidence on that score - the emails/internal docs DO refute that. Irrefutable will be signed contracts, bank statements, invoices and audited documents/other documentary proof

In your view, on a balance of probabilities, is HH Sheikh Mansour? Yes or no.

 

[slbsn]

I very much doubt Soriano, despite being the CEO of City Football Group, had much to do with this. He didn't arrive until late 2012 for one thing, when all these arrangements were already in place.

That is super charitable. Slide 4 here https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278 hints he was fully appraised/in the loop - there are only 3 people on the mail. And he was obviously bonused on matters pertaining to this type of area.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is not relevant in my mind. They can't provide "irrefutable" evidence on that score - the emails/internal docs DO refute that. Irrefutable will be signed contracts, bank statements, invoices and audited documents/other documentary proof

In your view, on a balance of probabilities, is HH Sheikh Mansour? Yes or no.

On the balance of probability, no.

 

[slbsn]

I'm not sure that's entirely true, CAS have already berated UEFA for their conduct and trustworthiness. The could very well suggest some serious investigation and reorganisation at UEFA (even if they can't enforce it).

First of all they haven't berated their "conduct and trustworthiness." It is neither their job to nor would they. In any event, its not a debate on whether CAS will look at the procedural fairness..."The facts and the law are examined de novo by a CAS panel in accordance with the power bestowed on it by article R57 of the CAS Code. The panel is therefore not limited to the facts and legal arguments of the previous instance. In relation to issues regarding the procedure at the lower instance, it is well-established in CAS’ case law that procedural defects in the lower instances can be cured through the de novo hearing before CAS." (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/4704.pdf)

 

[slbsn]

On the balance of probability, no.

Oh Colin

 

[Grassland Blue]

This notion that you can be so rich nobody can compete with you is in footballing terms, not really true at all. With or without FFP. You can only have 25 players in a squad, and you can only field XI. You might buy 11 of the most expensive players in the world, you might have the highest wage bill in the league as well, but it won't guarantee you success. So when people talk about it being unfair that owner X is this rich or owner Y is that rich, it's actually nonsense.

The truth of the matter is that whether it's FSG or Kroenke or the Glazers, they can all use their own wealth and match City pound for pound in our transfer spending. Regardless of how 'rich' Mansour is reported to be.

You can buy up the best players and loan them out though.
This deprives close rivals of a chance to close the gap.

 

[blueparrot]

You can buy up the best players and loan them out though.
This deprives close rivals of a chance to close the gap.

Best players don't sign for teams and agree to be loaned out.

 

[domalino]

You can buy up the best players and loan them out though.
This deprives close rivals of a chance to close the gap.

Can you? I dont think that's true. It's certainly never happened and I think all top players would rather be permanently at the 2nd best club in the country than contracted to the best club but loaned somewhere shit.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Oh Colin

LOL. You knew I was going to say that though didn't you?

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

I have commented along these lines previously but the more I read the Der Speigel mails the more incredulous I become at the complacency and slapdash approach of club executives. They clearly knew of the threat against the club from both UEFA & the cartel clubs so not to have state level security for internal communications was negligence of the highest order.

I'm certain that if you had access to the confidential mails of more or less any club you could find material that would be highly prejudicial to them so the trick is not to let them get out into the public domain.

We totally failed in this regard and here we are.

 

[BillyShears]

You can buy up the best players and loan them out though.
This deprives close rivals of a chance to close the gap.

No you can't. You need the players to acquiesce. Unless you're talking about young/youth players, in which case it's not really relevant to the conversation about being able to 'compete'. It's fundamentally a nonsense when people say that nobody can compete with City or PSG.

I've got a list as long as my arm of players we tried to sign in the last 10 years who went elsewhere which completely refutes that theory.

 

[Grassland Blue]

Best players don't sign for teams and agree to be loaned out.

There's been one or two. The rags signed some German bloke (pigsticker)and stuffed him in the reserves. Then there was Falcao, Pogbad etc.
Shawny went to Chelski.
Maybe the term loaned out is wrong, playing them in the reserves is better.

 

[slbsn]

LOL. You knew I was going to say that though didn't you?

I was hoping you would have a view of, on the one hand, of something city could argue (its not SM) and on the other, the likely reality (its SM).