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

[projectriver]

I am sorry but this post is rubbish. There seems to have been some discussions with cerferan tho we do not know if we wanted a deal. If we are innocent how can we deal ? We cannot comment on ongoing legal matters. Look how CAS dammed UEFA in CAS one. I wish we could I wish city would come out with some of the details on here. Not that the media would bother reporting it one it does not fit the agenda second it would bore no city fans to death

Of course we could (and still could) deal. First of all we must have dealt on the same basis in 2014 when we entered the 2014 settlement - we certainly did not admit the breaches then. So whilst we may have taken a tactical decision not to settle, we absolutely could have. We CHOSE not to.

We can comment on legal matters. Again we may choose HOW we comment but we absolutely could have chosen to explain our defence. We CHOSE not to.

As for the media not reporting it, I don't agree. You can always find ways of getting a story out - briefings, exclusives, access etc. Again we CHOSE not to.

Can you see a theme?

 

[KS55]

Yes I've read it once or twice (!).
109 only says "doesn't exclude the possibility...rights not fully respected" (not exactly scathing)
110 says nothing relevant to the point
111 says if there was failings they were not sufficient to say "MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber"
112 says nothing relevant to the point
113 says the leaks were "worrisome" and City's complaints "not entirely without merit". Its relevant and meaningful context for CAS 2 but its hardly game changing.
114 is similar to 113 in importance.

In any event, all can be cured on these topics by the de novo review of the case at CAS. It therefore becomes just background and neither here nor there. There is no victory for City just from CAS saying the AC didn't act well. CAS have to find the ACs judgment on matters was wrong.

When I first read R57, I thought that it gave CAS power to run an enquiry de novo, but did not estop the appellant from raising previous procedural matters which might illustrate bad faith by Uefa's IC or AC.
Perhaps doing that in a sort of aside may not be good tactics. Saving grace is the presence of two of the panel from CAS 1.

 

[franksinatra]

When I first read R57, I thought that it gave CAS power to run an enquiry de novo, but did not estop the appellant from raising previous procedural matters which might illustrate bad faith by Uefa's IC or AC.
Perhaps doing that in a sort of aside may not be good tactics. Saving grace is the presence of two of the panel from CAS 1.

Lol. I might need google translate for this one.

 

[projectriver]

When I first read R57, I thought that it gave CAS power to run an enquiry de novo, but did not estop the appellant from raising previous procedural matters which might illustrate bad faith by Uefa's IC or AC.
Perhaps doing that in a sort of aside may not be good tactics. Saving grace is the presence of two of the panel from CAS 1.

I don't doubt they will raise it. But I do not think it will impact the CAS decision directly. The reality is that if CAS conclude the IC or AC was acting in bad faith, City's arguments will succeed because its logically impossible for UEFA to act in bad faith but be right on each step of the substantive argument. The essence of the bad faith allegation is that it was used to jump hurdles that couldn't be jumped without that bad faith.

 

[dickie davies]

If a sponsorship comes from a third party it doesn't matter how much it is. If a sponsorship comes from a related party it has to be fair market value.

An owner can sponsor his own club for as much as he likes within the rules. But it has to be declared and if it is above fair market value it could well be adjusted downward by UEFA for the purposes of FFP.

Thank you very much for the explanation. So would the issue be we have not declared the funding then and if the owner could fund us, within the rules, why would the emails suggest we did it via Etihad??

And then there is the twist in the plot
When we were originally found in breach of FFP, UEFA's auditors PWC, were arguing Etihad were a related party. City was arguing they were not
I've had it confirmed by @projectriver that the very incriminating email which speaks of ADUG shareholder making a payment (to make up Etihad's obligation), is after our argument with PWC
So our positions on whether Etihad is a related party are probably now reversed

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Good for you but in these troubled times an owner finding a dodgy way to put more money into the Club they own might isn’t much more than a misdemeanour IMHO. Yes I might think less of the administration but it won’t affect my love for City. If people want to walk away from supporting the club if we can no longer afford world class players then that’s my choice but I would prefer there to be 30k in the ground getting behind the lads.

I think k the Club’s values seem to have improved from the Swales and Lee eras anyway. Calls by staff to vulnerable fans, paying match day staff in full, full ticket and season card refunds for cancelled games, support of food banks and free sky codes for the games we can’t go to at least matches any cheating / manipulation on FFP we might or might not have done.

Too right. Their are too many holier than thou on this thread. Many of those are so quick to jump on the media thread should THEY say anything slightly damning.

 

[WRicko]

Of course we could (and still could) deal. First of all we must have dealt on the same basis in 2014 when we entered the 2014 settlement - we certainly did not admit the breaches then. So whilst we may have taken a tactical decision not to settle, we absolutely could have. We CHOSE not to.

We can comment on legal matters. Again we may choose HOW we comment but we absolutely could have chosen to explain our defence. We CHOSE not to.

As for the media not reporting it, I don't agree. You can always find ways of getting a story out - briefings, exclusives, access etc. Again we CHOSE not to.

Can you see a theme?

We have comment on the case via the in house interview but what more could we say? You do not outline your case for obvious legal and tactical reasons. We do not really know what UEFA will say either despite leaks. Look at other cases in other settings you do not really get any details.

As for settling taking a deal your assuming that there was a deal your previous post argued we did not do anything t to settle but we know we spoke a lot with Ceferan in any event if not guilty why settle ? Especially when even after negitions the punishment was so severe? Look at how we are treated in the media regarding our previous non guilt settlement imagine if we did that again. No one outside or city considers us not guilt the first time round. Does anyone on here consider Liverpool not guilt of hacking having settled and paid 1 million ? I have less respect for people who settle when innocent than people who clear there names

 

[KS55]

Lol. I might need google translate for this one.

Tis perfectly clear!

 

[bluemanchester]

Of course we could (and still could) deal. First of all we must have dealt on the same basis in 2014 when we entered the 2014 settlement - we certainly did not admit the breaches then. So whilst we may have taken a tactical decision not to settle, we absolutely could have. We CHOSE not to.

We can comment on legal matters. Again we may choose HOW we comment but we absolutely could have chosen to explain our defence. We CHOSE not to.

As for the media not reporting it, I don't agree. You can always find ways of getting a story out - briefings, exclusives, access etc. Again we CHOSE not to.

Can you see a theme?

The City directors and senior management choosing not to is the way our owners have run the club since they bought it. I have known many people "well in" at the club over the years and they always had an idea at what was going on, up to Garry Cook leaving, but since then the internal decisions have been guarded tighter than a ducks backside and thats watertight. So City choosing not to leak anything, in my view, is not unusual in fact it is the norm.

 

[projectriver]

We have comment on the case via the in house interview but what more could we say? You do not outline your case for obvious legal and tactical reasons. We do not really know what UEFA will say either despite leaks. Look at other cases in other settings you do not really get any details.

As for settling taking a deal your assuming that there was a deal your previous post argued we did not do anything t to settle but we know we spoke a lot with Ceferan in any event if not guilty why settle ? Especially when even after negitions the punishment was so severe? Look at how we are treated in the media regarding our previous non guilt settlement imagine if we did that again. No one outside or city considers us not guilt the first time round. Does anyone on here consider Liverpool not guilt of hacking having settled and paid 1 million ? I have less respect for people who settle when innocent than people who clear there names

We disagree but the key if City pursue this strategy, is that City win. Any other outcome and whether they are actually "innocent" will be irrelevant.