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

[Kazzydeyna]

That is an interesting argument. Do you think the panel, like Leterme etc would risk their reputation though and if UEFA have little grounds to punish us, and their arguments are baseless, would that also not make UEFA look corrupt. As you say it may depend on what is considered the lesser of the two evils.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe uefa went ahead with a case that they may well have known was shaky and knowing we would appeal and have gambled on imposing a draconian sentence, perhaps believing the ban would be reduced at appeal. This is then a win win for them. "We did city, they appealed, they still got a ban" etc.

It's an advanced version of the original case. "We did city, clipped their wings, kept them in their place" what they didnt bank on originally was the explosive growth in our business on and particularly off the field.

I think they've gambled believing the odds of SOME form of punishment remaining after an appeal made it a justifiable gamble. Let's be real here, if we are not completely exonerated (which is by no means guaranteed) uefa have won. The narrative is set for all time, namely "City are cheats. We proved it"

That is why I believe City refused any deal that may have been offered, unlike the first time around. We have gone all in in this. It really is win or bust.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Do you think, if City did win, there would be a case for defamation?

Against UEFA? Doubt it. More likely against certain newspapers and journalists but it's a path I doubt we'd take unless it was something particularly nasty.

 

[Coatigan]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread lately, and credit to the posters offering a little bit of balance. Ultimately that's what will decide this, on balance, one will have a slightly more convincing arguement.

I see it mentioned a fair bit that both sides have so much to lose, i'm not sure i agree with that.

We certainly have so so much to lose. Uefa however, not that much at all. If we win, and by that i mean total clearance (as partial reductions of the ban are no win) this wont be the first or last case made by uefa that gets overturned. It is routine proceedings within a mechanism that exists to do just that. It will set no precedent that hasnt already partially been set, no positions will be lost, nor any meaningful reputation.

FFP itself is not being challenged, nor is uefa, just the process and interpretation of evidence supplied by us, within a timeframe they had to work to, by a separate (i dont want to use the word independent) body within uefa. So they have all the outs they could wish for. Time was too short, the evidence was unclear, basic diffence of interpretation. etc etc etc. We certainly have a lot more to lose.

I agree that this isnt as trivial and as obviously baseless as we'd like to think. For experienced professionals, irrespective of where their motivation might lie, to issue such a verdict and punishment, they must think they have some grounds. No way would they be doing that on rivals' perv
perceived peer pressure, biased media rumourmongering (and both do certainly exist), without Some substance they think they can cling to. We could be 100% right in our eyes (as a club rather than fan commentators), still needs demonstrated in terms suitable to this process. So while i absolutely love the confidence, and buy into it with plenty of hope, i take nothing for granted and recognize it is no givem we will just breeze through clearing this.

 

[shevtheblue]

Against UEFA? Doubt it. More likely against certain newspapers and journalists but it's a path I doubt we'd take unless it was something particularly nasty.

It did seem we went out of our way to talk about how UEFA's procedure was unfair, and how they specifically leaked things to the press. Sounds like some kind of liable to me, but we do have a history of just trying to work it out (which might be the best thing to do).

 

[nmc]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe uefa went ahead with a case that they may well have known was shaky and knowing we would appeal and have gambled on imposing a draconian sentence, perhaps believing the ban would be reduced at appeal. This is then a win win for them. "We did city, they appealed, they still got a ban" etc.

It's an advanced version of the original case. "We did city, clipped their wings, kept them in their place" what they didnt bank on originally was the explosive growth in our business on and particularly off the field.

I think they've gambled believing the odds of SOME form of punishment remaining after an appeal made it a justifiable gamble. Let's be real here, if we are not completely exonerated (which is by no means guaranteed) uefa have won. The narrative is set for all time, namely "City are cheats. We proved it"

That is why I believe City refused any deal that may have been offered, unlike the first time around. We have gone all in in this. It really is win or bust.

There are two questions for CAS to address at the hearing the first being - are we guilty of breaching FFP rules - where we are accused of “inflating” sponsorship deals. This will be a straight forward - yes you did and their is sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to support that claim Or no you didn’t and their is insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to support such a claim. Here we either get off Scott free or we get a punishment - there is no splitting the difference. This point may be complicated by City’s claim that the process used was unfair - But I won’t address that here safe to say that CAS have already indicated that the process used may have flaws.

The second question for CAS - which only arises if question 1 finds us guilty - is does the punishment fit the crime based upon comparison with similar cases - on that point the punishment does look disproportionate so thoughts about a 1 year ban probably do come into play BUT only at this point.

 

[KS55]

Reading this thread, I am struck by the fact that Bluemooners have got much closer to the truth than the national press. Ok, we are naturally biassed and some of our posts are wide of the mark but, generally speaking, we present a strong analytical case.
@Prestwich_Blue has a much better grasp of the technicalities than any of the scribblers. @nmc produced a marvellous analysis of the psychological dimension to this case. There are many other decent contributions and this is without access to facts which the press could obtain but are reluctant to do so.
Nobody reading the press would get the impression that there is a huge battle going on between the G14, who have largely captured UEFA, and elements within the organization who want a fairer more balanced approach. The European Clubs association is silent -- the cartel is in the process of capturing them, too. What you might call the second rank of European clubs are being damaged and there seems to be no-one standing up for them.
As an example, take UEFA's boasting about the success of FFP. It has actually damaged European football. Oh, say Uefa, look how the losses have reduced. That may be so, but at an enormous cost. No paper has pointed out that balance sheets are a mess: large borrowings and debt mean clubs are to no position to handle the financial effects of coronavirus. As for competitiveness, look at leagues all over Europe: from the largest to the smallest mostly they are dominated by just one club. France, Italy, Germany know who the champions will be before a ball is kicked. In the smaller leagues the situation is even worse. No paper has done any analysis. Only England is an exception due, of course, to the filthy oil money of Chelsea and City. Bluemoon has discussed this, where is the contribution of the Times or Guardian? No, they prefer to major on City's 'sins' and get the clicks.
So, Bluemooners try to make sense of all this, while the national media scribblers go to the pub, and they call us paranoid.
When UEFA implodes and the G14 run football for their own benefit with a closed shop competition, everyone will ask what happened. The answer is that the press will have let us all down in favour of clickbait.
Keep at it blues, we will win in the end.

 

[Proy]

Very good point George. UEFA stands in the way of the Cartel getting their European Super League. They'd be equally happy to see us take UEFA down as to see UEFA take us down. So they see it as a win-win but some of them are going to end up as the casualties here.

This angle intrigues me.

Obviously aware that the cartel clubs are involved deeply in the dark arts, but I'd like to know how they will end up as casualties.

 

[cheekybids]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread lately, and credit to the posters offering a little bit of balance. Ultimately that's what will decide this, on balance, one will have a slightly more convincing arguement.

I see it mentioned a fair bit that both sides have so much to lose, i'm not sure i agree with that.

We certainly have so so much to lose. Uefa however, not that much at all. If we win, and by that i mean total clearance (as partial reductions of the ban are no win) this wont be the first or last case made by uefa that gets overturned. It is routine proceedings within a mechanism that exists to do just that. It will set no precedent that hasnt already partially been set, no positions will be lost, nor any meaningful reputation.

FFP itself is not being challenged, nor is uefa, just the process and interpretation of evidence supplied by us, within a timeframe they had to work to, by a separate (i dont want to use the word independent) body within uefa. So they have all the outs they could wish for. Time was too short, the evidence was unclear, basic diffence of interpretation. etc etc etc. We certainly have a lot more to lose.

I agree that this isnt as trivial and as obviously baseless as we'd like to think. For experienced professionals, irrespective of where their motivation might lie, to issue such a verdict and punishment, they must think they have some grounds. No way would they be doing that on rivals' perv
perceived peer pressure, biased media rumourmongering (and both do certainly exist), without Some substance they think they can cling to. We could be 100% right in our eyes (as a club rather than fan commentators), still needs demonstrated in terms suitable to this process. So while i absolutely love the confidence, and buy into it with plenty of hope, i take nothing for granted and recognize it is no givem we will just breeze through clearing this.

Really good points raised & the issue that interests me if City are cleared is who takes responsibility for this charade.

If no one & it stops as soon as City are cleared then you’ll see why it’s occurred & it happens the world over. There has to be retribution & it has to individuals as well as the the Corp they represent I.e if it’s Gill & Parry then they & the Rags & Dippers benefitted need punishing.

Netflix has a good series called dirty money, very interesting & don’t expect big industries to play by the rules.

 

[Fuzzy80]

An interesting side story to this is Newcastle, there is an argument on City getting in before the draw bridge was closed and we are and have become one of the strongest teams within. This case will cement that or weaken us for a period, but regardless we are in for the long term.

Newcastle are not in, yet will have the financial strength to scare the G14.

The last thing they want at this point is City going after FFP and dare I say it City board (as a fan I don’t agree with it) would also want FFP.

Whether in this cloaks and daggers world this will have any effect, but I do think G14/ UEFA will have one eye on Newcastle at this time as well...

 

[Kenward Garg]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread lately, and credit to the posters offering a little bit of balance. Ultimately that's what will decide this, on balance, one will have a slightly more convincing arguement.

I see it mentioned a fair bit that both sides have so much to lose, i'm not sure i agree with that.

We certainly have so so much to lose. Uefa however, not that much at all. If we win, and by that i mean total clearance (as partial reductions of the ban are no win) this wont be the first or last case made by uefa that gets overturned. It is routine proceedings within a mechanism that exists to do just that. It will set no precedent that hasnt already partially been set, no positions will be lost, nor any meaningful reputation.

FFP itself is not being challenged, nor is uefa, just the process and interpretation of evidence supplied by us, within a timeframe they had to work to, by a separate (i dont want to use the word independent) body within uefa. So they have all the outs they could wish for. Time was too short, the evidence was unclear, basic diffence of interpretation. etc etc etc. We certainly have a lot more to lose.

I agree that this isnt as trivial and as obviously baseless as we'd like to think. For experienced professionals, irrespective of where their motivation might lie, to issue such a verdict and punishment, they must think they have some grounds. No way would they be doing that on rivals' perv
perceived peer pressure, biased media rumourmongering (and both do certainly exist), without Some substance they think they can cling to. We could be 100% right in our eyes (as a club rather than fan commentators), still needs demonstrated in terms suitable to this process. So while i absolutely love the confidence, and buy into it with plenty of hope, i take nothing for granted and recognize it is no givem we will just breeze through clearing this.

I’ve a feeling you’ll be proved right. This whole process stinks but hasn’t it always been that way?