ICYMI - Seeing the Wood for FFPs - 2 part analysis (Semi-long reads)

[projectriver]

Thanks for your prompt reply. Am I right in thinking that many of these documents would have been submitted to UEFA before the settlement agreement of 2014 and others before we exited the settlement regime and that this lends support to the view that UEFA must be relying on the stolen emails to question the accuracy/credibility of some of these documents? These emails cannot have been subjected to anything like the examination/analysis as the documents listed above, even if they are admissible. UEFA appears to be on a collision course not only with the club but with multinational companies and with companies on which the integrity and honesty of business relies and all on some emails which appear be of no significance! This seems to be a view so extreme that I would be grateful for your comments - and any further thoughts as to why UEFA have pushed it so far.

City wouldn't have submitted documents that undermine their position unless required to do by the rules of disclosure in that case. The documents above would likely have been submitted to the extent they exist. The more they don't exist the more force of the IC's argument. The admissibility of the hacked emails has always been a red herring. The problem with those emails is that they give UEFA ammunition to ask the right questions of City if they haven't already. UEFA likely to be pushing hard a) because they probably believe as a body that the settlement in 2014 was unduly lenient b) there is pressure, politically and competitively, from elsewhere to punish City - even if it is overturned.

 

[blueinsa]

City wouldn't have submitted documents that undermine their position unless required to do by the rules of disclosure in that case. The documents above would likely have been submitted to the extent they exist. The more they don't exist the more force of the IC's argument. The admissibility of the hacked emails has always been a red herring. The problem with those emails is that they give UEFA ammunition to ask the right questions of City if they haven't already. UEFA likely to be pushing hard a) because they probably believe as a body that the settlement in 2014 was unduly lenient b) there is pressure, politically and competitively, from elsewhere to punish City - even if it is overturned.

b) should automatically be dismissed though as it simply isn't relevant?

 

[projectriver]

b) should automatically be dismissed though as it simply isn't relevant?

It would be very good news if this was the driving force because it will make it more likely that City would succeed at CAS. But who knows.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

It would be very good news if this was the driving force because it will make it more likely that City would succeed at CAS. But who knows.

The agreement City reached with Uefa in 2014 over not being able to revisit the 12-16 accounts. Is this the thing that will get the whole thing shut down by the CAS? Have Uefa found a way in that agreement to hang us out to dry as it’s bizarre they have decided to just ignore it.

 

[razman]

great work !

 

[projectriver]

The agreement City reached with Uefa in 2014 over not being able to revisit the 12-16 accounts. Is this the thing that will get the whole thing shut down by the CAS? Have Uefa found a way in that agreement to hang us out to dry as it’s bizarre they have decided to just ignore it.

On the face of it, it is City's cleanest argument to getting the matter overturned completely. Other arguments could work in part and reduce the ban.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

City wouldn't have submitted documents that undermine their position unless required to do by the rules of disclosure in that case. The documents above would likely have been submitted to the extent they exist. The more they don't exist the more force of the IC's argument. The admissibility of the hacked emails has always been a red herring. The problem with those emails is that they give UEFA ammunition to ask the right questions of City if they haven't already. UEFA likely to be pushing hard a) because they probably believe as a body that the settlement in 2014 was unduly lenient b) there is pressure, politically and competitively, from elsewhere to punish City - even if it is overturned.

Is it not the case that UEFA agreed the settlement in 2014 and allowed City to exit the settlement regime in 2017 it doesn't matter what questions it asks of City because it doesn't get a second chance? Is what you mean hers that UEFA is simply under pressure from what is known in these pages as "the cartel" to smear City with the IC's and AC's decisions (hence the leaks) and they are quite prepred for CAS to support our appeal? Isn't this very risky in that the club could claim damages as could Etihad and possibly our other sponsors? Also, isn't UEFA's position more vulnerable in any future action because in the matter of sponsorship it acts not as a governing body but as a competing party?

 

[projectriver]

Answers to BluessinceHydeRoad

Is it not the case that UEFA agreed the settlement in 2014 and allowed City to exit the settlement regime in 2017 it doesn't matter what questions it asks of City because it doesn't get a second chance? Arguably

Is what you mean hers that UEFA is simply under pressure from what is known in these pages as "the cartel" to smear City with the IC's and AC's decisions (hence the leaks) and they are quite prepred for CAS to support our appeal? Perhaps - I mean the motivation could be more political

Isn't this very risky in that the club could claim damages as could Etihad and possibly our other sponsors? If we don't get a ban, there won't any loss. In any event, sponsors could not sure UEFA as they have no nexus.

Also, isn't UEFA's position more vulnerable in any future action because in the matter of sponsorship it acts not as a governing body but as a competing party? Not really

 

[Gordyola]

One thought on City’s evidence.
IC rushed their verdict due to the time limited problem, City claimed that a 200pg document hadn’t been considered (the irrefutable evidence?)

The AC based their decision on the evidence passed by the IC and accused City of non cooperation

My view is the 200pg document wasn’t considered by the AC and hence why, this independent body, arrived at the verdict they did

The delay in the AC announcing their verdict was due to having to wait for CAS, to complete their process and announce their verdict

 

[petrusha]

Semantics, of course. Very few things are "irrefutable" and when you send the Pearce email you make it almost to claim anything is on the relevant topic!

Yes. I was joking, really, because we had a lengthy debate the other afternoon on the main thread about a semantic issue. I agree with you in general that Simon Pearce's email comments were extraordinarily unhelpful and the same kind of truculent arrogance seems to have seeped into the club's later stance on this matter with similarly unpropitious consequences.