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

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

We are all forced into the realms of speculation and conjecture because we do not know anything of the evidence, apart from in the broadest outline, on which the case will be decided. If, as PB says, UEFA's case rests on evidence which is wafer thin, and that means not on the emails themselves but on redacted versions which appeared in Der Spiegel, then the confidence of the City hierarchy is well placed and easy to understand. This evidence is what Khaldoon might describe as entirely "refutable". UEFA will need documentary proof that Sheikh Mansour actually paid part of the Etihad sponsorship and if that was the case I would be amazed that City had let such a paper trail fall into any hands. That Khaldoon argues that we have irrefutable proof that there have been no breaches of FFP may suggest strongly that City has the documentary evidence to prove that all was above board and, therefore, the decision of the IC and then the AC is unsustainable. This rests on a series of ifs and buts and certainly raises the question either of why UEFA are taking the case so far on such feeble evidence or, conversely, why City are doing the same with such confidence. For obvious reasons I think City will triumph because I would expect City to be able to produce the documents to prove our case and demolish UEFA's, but why have we not done so far?

Which leads on to the "smoking gun"! If City want to prove to the world once and for all that this case is no more than one episode in a continuous campaign by a gang of clubs to destroy our club then they have to produce evidence which amounts to "irrefutable proof" and I suspect this would be open to objections on the grounds of admissibility. I doubt it could have been given freely to our club! I cannot see UEFA taking the case so far if we had presented it to the IC already, and if we haven't will it be admissible at CAS?

 

[Chi-town blues]

I suspect this has very little to do with Txiki. He gets his budgets and brings players in and keeps them. Very successfully too.

Mancini ooohh Mancini ohhh ...
:)

 

[Rammy Blue]

If City had a real smoking gun then none of this would've happened.

The notion that they'd let their reputations be sullied in the way they have with leaks, rumours, and innuendos, only to then pitch up at CAS with something which would've killed the investigation at source seems rather far fetched to me.

I think the best case scenario in terms of 'smoking gun' is simply that they've found a technicality within UEFA's rules which stops them from being able to punish City for something historical in this manner.

Nah, that wouldn’t tally with the “irrefutable evidence” line we’ve happily trotted out.

 

[wahablue]

Cast your minds back to the Real Madrid game,a fair ref,now we have never had one of those in the last 10 years,what has shaken EUFA establishment to give us a fair ref.Just saying.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Cast your minds back to the Real Madrid game,a fair ref,now we have never had one of those in the last 10 years,what has shaken EUFA establishment to give us a fair ref.Just saying.

Yep I literally couldn't believe that, we Wouldn't have got those decision's in previous ko games. Almost like someone had a word.

 

[WRicko]

It will. But let's look at what we do know, i.e. information that is in the public domain:

1. We have a sponsorship contract with Etihad under which the sponsor is to receive shirt sponsorship rights plus naming rights to the stadium and area around it, including the training ground and the local light rail station.

2. That contract was accepted to have been entered into at a fair value for FFP purposes by the specialist valuers appointed by UEFA for the purpose (actually, IIRC, the neutral value was marginally below but by so little they didn't think it worth quibbling over).

3. We've performed our obligations under that fairly valued contract so as to provide Etihad with the benefits stated above.

4. Our audited accounts reflect that the monies paid under the contract were received from Etihad, as stipulated by the contract.

5. UEFA entered into a settlement agreement with MCFC in 2014 and signed off the club's compliance under a special reporting procedure in 2015 and 2016, which suggests they accepted all of the above.

We're accused of inflating sponsorship revenues under the Etihad deal. However, if it's true that Etihad has been subsidised in order to pay the full amount of the sponsorship fee, then the above suggests not that we're actually guilty of inflating the Etihad sponsorship but that people of influence in Abu Dhabi want Etihad to benefit from a sponsorship of the most successful team of the past decade in arguably the world's highest-profile domestic sporting competition in the world when its financial position wouldn't otherwise allow it to do so.

Now, all we know of UEFA's evidence that's prompted conclusions to the contrary was published as part of the Football Leaks materials. Those emails are clearly taken out of context and are open to interpretation, despite the way in which the media has universally presented them. And as published, they seem an extraordinarily flimsy basis on which to hand down the kind of punishment we've been hit with.

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

seems like an excellent summary and I don’t suppose anyone knows more about the Etihad deal I am curios as to make up of the payments given that it covers the campus which at the time of signing did not exist so are the payments staggered would it help us if they are ? Wouldn’t it make them look more reasonable ? Does that matter ?

 

[Brendan110_0]

But you dont know what evidence we produced.

Nether does UEFA because they never looked at it. Easy to prove guilt if you don't let the accused submit any defense. This is where CAS should find failure and UEFA 5 year limit is up - BOOM.

 

[Cobwebcat]

UEFA haven’t taken it this far because of some notion they are confident of winning nor is it because they want to lose.

UEFA have been forced down this path by our rival clubs aka the cartel.

All the clues were in Soranio’s address. UEFA invited the old G14 into their decision making process in return for an agreement not to break away. The clubs have taken advantage and are running UEFA. When UEFA lose it doesn’t affect the clubs but will pulverise UEFA. Then the same clubs can claim UEFA needs better governance organised by them.

UEFA have been naive and any unbiased court will see what has happened. When City win they must go after the clubs too.

The 2 year exclusion was given with the idea of negotiating it down to one. City have rightly said no.

Only my opinion but our strongest argument seems to be that if we had done what we are accused of now it would be fine.

 

[super_city_si]

Only my opinion but our strongest argument seems to be that if we had done what we are accused of now it would be fine.

I hope that isnt our argument. If you break a rule at the time it was in place it doesnt matter if it is later changed. You knowingly broke the rules.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

So if you had a smoking gun on some of the G14 you’d play your hand at UEFA? I wouldn’t. I’d go to CAS and get the evidence overseen and judged by someone impartial.

If we could blow this case apart easily we would have done long ago. There’s been significant damage to the club already. I’ve not given up hope of course, but I’m not buying some of the bullishness.

I’ve been involved in lots of legal disputes and you always say your evidence is irrefutable or rock solid or whatever: You aren’t going to say “well we’ve got a few bits so let’s see what pans out”. If nothing else you can act aghast if your case isn’t accepted ;-)