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

[slbsn]

I was going off this comment Projectriver ?

Correct

 

[SilverFox2]

I think we should be very selective with any legal action. It's very time-consuming and City have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. That's not to say we shouldn't be more proactive in rebutting clowns like Jordan. There are many things you can do to make life difficult for our enemies than being tied up in costly legal actions. You dont always get your costs paid even when you win.
Jordan has little credibility and Talksport is a bit of a joke. I would be more worried about people like Matthew Syed who has written defamatory articles in the past about our owners in the Times (which is still seen as an influential newspaper). I don't think many of our potential sponsors listen to Talksport. We need to pick our battles.

A long memory instead of a short temper was the ex City manager Joe Mercer's saying,

I'm sure our owners have ways to deal with problem people without a tedious legal battle some of the media actually want.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

A long memory instead of a short temper was the ex City manager Joe Mercer's saying,

I'm sure our owners have ways to deal with problem people without a tedious legal battle some of the media actually want.

I agree but I would support a selective legal action to send a shot over the bows of those who have tried to destroy us in the media. The scattergun approach is a waste of time but it would have a positive impact if we took down one of the big media fish like the BBC for example in a legal battle. As they say revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

[SilverFox2]

I agree but I would support a selective legal action to send a shot over the bows of those who have tried to destroy us in the media. The scattergun approach is a waste of time but it would have a positive impact if we took down one of the big media fish like the BBC for example in a legal battle. As they say revenge is a dish best served cold.

Fully agree.

It would be a mistake to assume our owners will simply take unlimited abuse and fabrication.

 

[BrianW]

I find our owner a bit of a mystery really. I would expect a top Arab bloke like him to be very proud, and to have a high concept of his own honour. He is of course, almost unimaginably rich and very powerful in the wider world.

For such a bloke, he seems to be willing to swallow an awful lot of shit. Maybe he's playing a long game. Maybe it's tactical. Maybe his snapping-point will come. Or maybe he's doesn't deign to climb down into the gutter with these scum.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

I’m bringing the gavel down & going for CAS to bang a few heads together & insist that UEFA stop trying to be a big bully & City to stop blowing raspberries & flicking the bird when their backs are turned

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I think we were moving towards the opinion that UEFA's assertions that City had inflated the value of sponsorship deals could only be sustained if we had also falsified our accounts and it seems that the alleged falsification of the accounts is the alleged breach that means the 5 year limit does not apply. Presumably this was argued by UEFA during City's earlier appeal but we do not know whether CAS reached any conclusion. As has been said many times before, claims of false accounts are very serious indeed and, I believe, can only be proven after long "forensic" examination. City's confidence, however, appears to rest not on the difficulties of proving we have falsified the accounts but on our "irrefutable proof" that these accusations are "simply untrue". In such circumstances I think CAS will have to abandon the idea that City can be damned on the balance of probabilities and conclude that UEFA should have irrefutable proof of its own and should have presented it NOW, not possibly at the end of a lengthy forensic examination, before it decided City were in breach. It is hard to believe UEFA can have done this. I think I am rather more confident than I was before I read projectriver's post!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I find our owner a bit of a mystery really. I would expect a top Arab bloke like him to be very proud, and to have a high concept of his own honour. He is of course, almost unimaginably rich and very powerful in the wider world.

For such a bloke, he seems to be willing to swallow an awful lot of shit. Maybe he's playing a long game. Maybe it's tactical. Maybe his snapping-point will come. Or maybe he's doesn't deign to climb down into the gutter with these scum.

I think this has been the snapping point, from what I've heard.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

I think this has been the snapping point, from what I've heard.

If I was in the sheiks shoes, my snapping point would probably up my urge to succeed. To succeed is probably to invest more. Or call in favours from other people who can. Say people in China or linked to silverlake or any of the many multitude of companies that AD have invested in heavily.

 

[Manchester33]

Ours could be equally cut-and-dried and based on a technicality.

Yes, it could be cut and dried based on a technicality, but going off the communications from the club I don't think we had any clear procedural breaches to exploit. If that had been the case we wouldn't have had to go to CAS for a second time.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I find our owner a bit of a mystery really. I would expect a top Arab bloke like him to be very proud, and to have a high concept of his own honour. He is of course, almost unimaginably rich and very powerful in the wider world.

For such a bloke, he seems to be willing to swallow an awful lot of shit. Maybe he's playing a long game. Maybe it's tactical. Maybe his snapping-point will come. Or maybe he's doesn't deign to climb down into the gutter with these scum.

I think until now, he's tried to maintain a dignified silence, kept his own council (in the public arena) and stayed classy, that's always been my over-riding impression of SM , Karl , and basically all the individuals connected to him. I have, however, just noticed PB's comment about the snapping point, I'd like to hear more about that, PB ?

 

[WRicko]

I find our owner a bit of a mystery really. I would expect a top Arab bloke like him to be very proud, and to have a high concept of his own honour. He is of course, almost unimaginably rich and very powerful in the wider world.

For such a bloke, he seems to be willing to swallow an awful lot of shit. Maybe he's playing a long game. Maybe it's tactical. Maybe his snapping-point will come. Or maybe he's doesn't deign to climb down into the gutter with these scum.

Its complicated constantly suing people looks very bad for especially on borderline issues which the media would portray as him acting as he does in his own country when it comes to political protest. Second he wont be watching listening to the same crap we are. Also so far we are guilty according to UEFA and we have already settled once and whilst that was technically not an admission of guilt and if we where more proactive we could better explain the changes that court us out and the reasons behind FFP in the first place that original settlement does make us look guilty. Even if cleared what is it that the media have done that we can sue for there been plenty of bias and suggestion and to us UEFA case does not stack up because of the amount of auditing, supervision and inspection we have faced in the past and the implications of what UEFA are hinting we have done and the potential legal implications but it is some what understandable that UEFA are believed in the media (and it may still be the case that UEFA win) To do what they have done without strong evidence is amazing and the emails do look bad and we have settled for breaching before and big questions where rightly or wrongly raised over the size of some of our commercial deals at the time

 

[Coatigan]

So ffp suspended for just 12 months means really you can’t spend to big if you have to comply a year later!

Is it not more about balancing the lack of income, by spreading the spending now over a period when income starts to return?

 

[ancoats]

No it doesn't. Just read up on what's happened.

All this does is spread out the max yearly losses over 2 years. So you can make a loss that would breach FFP this year as long as you make up for it next year.

but they have a free year and gives them time to sign players ?? the whole thing is a sham and you watch barca/ madrid will sign 5 or 6 players this summer and we will be talking big signings. so why the need of a loan ?? just pay it back before any new signings are made or close the transfer market to them

 

[Coatigan]

Or the Boston Sports Company Warrior gave LFC the biggest kit deal in League history when the Dippers weren’t even in the CL - was that fair value?

Ahh that was different, that was a foreign brand overpaying to launch itself as a presence and name in the UK. Which is totally fair.

Unless that brand is Etihad.

 

[domalino]

but they have a free year and gives them time to sign players ?? the whole thing is a sham and you watch barca/ madrid will sign 5 or 6 players this summer and we will be talking big signings. so why the need of a loan ?? just pay it back before any new signings are made or close the transfer market to them

No, it's not a free year.

This year is just merged into next. So if you spend 100m this year, you have to make it all up next year to balance things out. in 2022 they'll be looking at 2019, [2020+2021] and 2022 as the reporting years.

Lost revenue that can be directly attributed to the pandemic (match day, broadcast differences year on year) can be made up through owner investment or loans, but not spending like transfers.

 

[Coatigan]

Was it just me or wasn’t the referral to CAS only to look at one subject only;

Did Waffa follow their own procedures in a fair unbiased manner ?

This would mean all previous comments about sponsorship deals, what ifs, how it’s considered are not in fact under review - it’s just a review that says ‘yes you followed your own rules or no you didn’t apply them fairly’ ?

Or is that too simplistic a view of this?

In simplistic terms, we are trying to challenge the decision Uefa reached. Whether that is through not properly following their procedures, following their procedures but coming to the wrong conclusion, through misunderstanding the evidence, being deliberately selective or unfair, or anything else. CAS will look at anything put in front of them, that is their duty, to ensure a fair say is afforded to us.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Or the Boston Sports Company Warrior gave LFC the biggest kit deal in League history when the Dippers weren’t even in the CL - was that fair value?

We know what the second highest bid was in that case and it was significantly less than Warrior's. Then it turned out that Warrior couldn't fulfil their obligations as they didn't have the distriubution outlets. And that deal was only for kit, not leisure wear, so was totally overvalued.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

No, it's not a free year.

This year is just merged into next. So if you spend 100m this year, you have to make it all up next year to balance things out. in 2022 they'll be looking at 2019, [2020+2021] and 2022 as the reporting years.

Lost revenue that can be directly attributed to the pandemic (match day, broadcast differences year on year) can be made up through owner investment or loans, but not spending like transfers.

I didn't realise they were allowing owner investment to make up for lost revenue, good news for City.

Do you have a link dom?

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

Yes, it could be cut and dried based on a technicality, but going off the communications from the club I don't think we had any clear procedural breaches to exploit. If that had been the case we wouldn't have had to go to CAS for a second time.

The first cas appeal was because uefa had previously attempted to kick out an appeal made at this stage saying it should have been appealed earlier. So cas agreed that we needed to appeal because uefas rules weren't clear on when we needed to appeal and they had previously argued against appeals at final stages