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

[Rammy Blue]

You’ll need double that if I’m around! I’ll drop you a line in advance if I’m thinking of coming online. I’ll be wearing my brownest trousers.....

You do love your glass being half empty, mate.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Tbf most city fans will probably be inclined to believe the club's execs until such a time as there is a proper legal process that proves them wrong. I can understand how this may seem myopic to fans of other clubs...

Agreed, and it's far from any kind of blind faith in my opinion too, we know from our own experience of how Sheikh Mansour, Karl Doon etc etc operate and conduct themselves and their business, I trust them implicitly, if we'd fucked up, I actually think they would hold their hands up and say it, they're honourable people, sadly, some sections will never accept that.

 

[Woody135]

An independent court would have to have proof that we'd lied.

I think we’re getting too deep into the metaphor here.

Ultimately that has already happened in a UEFA court. We are now appealing to an independent court. So WE need to prove innocence (i assume) not them proving guilt.
Our evidence has been claimed to be irrefutable (as I’m sure most people say in their own defence), but if that proves not to be the case ...

 

[The Colonel]

Bravado, in my interpretation here, was about our lack of awareness of what we were putting in writing at a very senior level.

That stuff should have been done in phone calls etc, especially since it seems our IT firewall was still under license from the Swales era.

Possibly negligent in IT security terms (although Pinto is no teenager in his bedroom) but on content only if you assume that we were up to no good. If we’re to believe City’s continued stance, we’ve done nothing wrong and from that point of view we weren’t discussing anything on email that should be incriminating. I understand your caution though as, after all, we know nothing.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

This sharpened my mind about ffp.
Thinking about it, It seems that the legitimacy of ffp rests almost entirely on the insistence that it is ‘good for the sport’ , as uefa know better than the law.
No surprise then about the warning from the ECJ after the Bosman ruling, which surely sets a precedent that uefa should be very conscious of.

I agree completely. The ECJ rejected entirely UEFA's contention that the Bosman case was none of the court's concern but was to be left to UEFA to decide what was in the best interests of the sport, as interpreted by UEFA. Of course the ruling went further and warned UEFA that any further cases would be judges according to what the law laid down and NOT what suited UEFA. Furthermore it rejected the notion of a "sporting exception" and insisted that the law of contract applied absolutely. What UEFA has tried to claim as recognition of a sporting exception was in fact an affirmation of the application of the law of contract - that both club and player were bound by the time limit of the contract unless both parties agreed to the contract's cancellation. The transfer fee is simply a means of winning the club's agreement for cancellation. If the contract runs its course and expires the player can move clubs. The Bosman case actually ruled on the application of free movement to football and showed, if anything, that it could be regulated by contract law but certainly not by UEFA, retain and transfer.

The relevance to FFP is obvious. Investment is quite clearly regulated by law and as the law applies to football, football has to abide by the law. FFP conflicts quite clearly with the laws governing the rights of investors and, therefore, any sanctions imposed for violations of FFP are null and void. UEFA has again put itself at odds with the courts and can expect no sympathy from them. And, as in the Bosman case, UEFA has the backing of the European commission but that is not a judicial body. In the Bosman case UEFA fought the case to the bitter end, in the belief, I think, that Bosman would be ruined long before he could get a favourable judgement. They were wrong then and if they think they can wear City down....

 

[spiny]

TBF, how many supporters of clubs would consistently continue to back their owners in the face of such a long anti City campaign on so many fronts?

This thread highlights clearly what has been going on since 2008 if you care to look? City are determined to seek justice. Manchester has a history of leading on good causes. Fans would not be behind the Club if they did not believe they were in the right.

It is the same belief loyalty that sustained us during our drop into the third tier when our support hardened.

Compare and contrast how City have contributed to Manchester and the treatment of City by UEFA, G14 and the original Sky5 to judge who is likely to be the most credible! Few other clubs have been involved so their supporters believe what they read and rarely beyond headlines.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But what if the speed sign was changed from 30 to 20 after you passed it and you reluctantly accepted a fine and points short of a driving ban. Several years later the police say somebody has sent them an email suggesting that someone else drive the car that day and you misled them about who was driving and will now be banned. They have no proof and you know you were the driver but they're going to ban you anyway

My analogy for all this would be that you were doing 32 in a 30 zone then being told they'd changed the limit to 20 later that day (effectively as happened with UEFA and their changing of the FFP toolkit) but effective at 8am. But as you weren't to know, they'll let you off with a £50 fine.

Then, a few years later, you get a summons for the same offence saying that they'd checked their equipment, which turned out to be faulty. They're not 100% sure but think you were doing closer to 40 so they're taking you to court for dangerous driving.

 

[Akpowell]

What's the name of the lawyer that's representing us

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What's the name of the lawyer that's representing us

Sue Grabbit-Run.

 

[Gazza]

They're from Taylor, Taylor, Taylor & Taylor, we've got Mr. Taylor.