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.
The post I was responding to said we hadn't mislead UEFA in any way. Which...like, come on man. I'm as upset as all of you that we got this punishment, which is unfair in my eyes. But we're not 100% innocent here either.
To the contrary.

Their Rag/Scouse sycophants in MSM are insinuating UEFA have in their possession a comprehensive cache of emails that contain Bank accounts,sort codes,names,dates,times,invoices etc.

If this really is true, then they have withheld vital information from Manchester City FC. And have not given Manchester City FC the opportunity to view what they have in their possession and explain it.
 
But we can't agree to abide by the rule, then break the rule and whinge about the rule.

we didn't have a choice but to abide by it, just as people discriminated in other ways of life, don't. I know we tried to screw ffp, we couldn't have make it at that time, we were too weak, but as long as they can't prove anything and I hope we have cards and loopholes to win it, I don't give a fuck about us not abiding by it.
 
But we can't agree to abide by the rule, then break the rule and whinge about the rule.

Let the courts decide if the rules were broken or not. UEFA are an organisation which clearly can’t be trusted. You have no idea of the club’s evidence so stop presuming.

You’re trying too hard to sound unbiased but coming across as naive because you yourself have no idea what the full story is. None of us do.
 
Let the courts decide if the rules were broken or not.

UEFA are an organisation which clearly can’t be trusted.

You have no idea of the club’s evidence so stop presuming.

You’re trying too hard to sound unbiased but coming across as naive because you yourself have no idea what the full story is. None of us do.

Of course I don't know the full story. Nobody on this forum does. I'm a City fan through and through but I think its naive to peddle this narrative that we're totally innocent.
 
Concerning if true but how would Conn know this? He seems to be the only one running with it. Also, if they do have invoices that put us bang to rights, then surely they would’ve issued their punishment way sooner than they did.
Unless they obtained them quite recently which would explain why the story changed from "City not facing a ban" and "UEFA want a deal" to all-out war in the space of three weeks.
 
I'm sure all those thinking we should have follow this shit rule, because something, are driving by the rules whenever they sit in the car. And that's even stupid comparing, as we should drive by rule as it's good and fair for everyone. FFP is not,
 
Think for a minute about what "the spirit" of the rules is.
I agree! The "rules" such that they are were pretty specifically designed to fuck with us. But we didn't challenge them in court at the time and then said we were abiding by them, then maybe didn't. If you accept the rules you don't get to say they're bullshit when you get caught breaking them.
 
So having read this thread, listened to 93:20 etc etc, it seems there are a lot of layers to City's position that I have been trying to get straight in my head and wanted to put down is some kind of order. I think they are as follows but would welcome the thoughts of those better qualified than me:

1 UEFA leaked during a confidential process - however CAS have looked at this already and said they very probably did but City haven't proven they were damaged by it
2 The process was fundamentally flawed: scoping document produced after case had begun, case progressed without having read City's submission etc etc - again think we'd have to prove this damaged us?
3 We agreed a settlement covering the relevant period and you cannot now go back and reopen it - would obviously depend on the exact wording of the settlement agreement which none of us have seen
4 Your own 5 year rule means you can't reopen the case as it was opened 5 years after the settlement agreement but more than 5 after the year of the alleged offence - like Stefan on the 93:20 podcast says this seems so obvious you can't believe UEFA would have messed it up?
5 The evidence was hacked and is inadmissible - not sure this applies to UEFA processes and CAS as they are not courts?
6 The evidence is partial and here is the full email chain which shows there was no offence anyway - possible of course but we don't know what we or UEFA have here as evidence. The emails may have evidenced what was considered but not what actually happened?
7 The evidence is partial and actually the funds did not flow from our owner but from elsewhere in AD so there was no offence. This has the whole issue around what HH refers to in AD which others have already commented on.
8 The evidence is partial and the accountants of City, Etihad and indeed UEFA have signed off everything was above board so the source of funds for Etihad cannot be proven to be a problem
9 PB's point from earlier that the rules would need to be interpreted in light of current UEFA practice rather than what was in place at the time and so we would not have breached the current interpretation of FFP
10 The way other clubs have been treated for similar offences is fundamentally different
11 If this all fails, then off to a real Swiss court that FFP itself if illegal

Have I missed anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.