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

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

On the paragraph towards the end on ‘less firm ground’. Since this has been written, I presume, UEFA have since via Wenger of all people said that the current FFP favours those whom made their money in the past. It may be that they can’t, and don’t now want to make the argument that FFP doesn’t breach competition law.

As you've read, the "less firm ground" comment was in relation to fighting FFP at CAS as some other clubs have done. The precedent is that there will be no joy there and effectively CAS are not interested. Wenger is with FIFA not UEFA but in any case and his comments will not have any bearing on this. Hypocritical as he is it is still interesting that there is likely to be a groundswell of opinion in the football world recognising that investment is essential.

 

[Gremlin]

My point entirely. A QC will be brutally honest if necessary when he believes a case is not winnable because losing it will be expensive for the client and the QC doesn't want a reputation of being so gung ho that his advice is actually unprofessional and not worth having. Lord Pannick has earned the reputation he currently enjoys. And, I will add, so have Khaldoon and Ferran. So, I too would be surprised if they led City into a hearing that Lord Pannick thought was shaky. This is why I asked, in a post yesterday, if anyone knew when we briefed him, because the club has apparently been preparing this appeal since the case was first referred to the IC, and if that's the case, I find it hard to believe that the club would have rejected any offer of a deal from Ceferin out of hand without taking advice from Lord Pannick first.

I had the dubious pleasure of being involved in a commercial case a few years ago (as the technical/engineering advisor) and sat in on the QC's initial briefing. Despite him saying he thought the client had a good case, he strongly advised them to cut a deal both due to the costs and the vaguaries of the legal system meaning a win was by no means a foregone conclusion. Although a bit taken aback, the client took his advice and cut a deal.

I would be very surprised if Ferran/Soriano et al were quite so bullish if they hadn't had some fairly robust advice from the QC that they were on to a winner. However, as has been pointed out before - you never know until you get into the courtroom.

 

[laserblue]

For me, it could be a lot more simple than that. Liverpool weren’t seen as an on the pitch rival back then. They finished something like 7th or 8th in 2012-13 and were so shit that they didn’t even qualify for Europe. We probably didn’t see them as much of a threat at the time which is very naive as the following season they challenged us for the title.

They also failed FFP in 2012-13 and their failure to qualify for Europe saved them from being sanctioned.

 

[oldius]

They also failed FFP in 2012-13 and their failure to qualify for Europe saved them from being sanctioned.

As well as the superb Stanley Park development.

 

[crystal_mais]

Maybe I'm being cynical - but I have a feeling they're out to get us and that's how it will remain

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Maybe I'm being cynical - but I have a feeling they're out to get us and that's how it will remain

snap I’ve got this horrible feeling we are going to get fucked over some way next week. The fact they are using hacked out of context emails to nail us to a door shows they will stoop to any level to get us pushed out of their advert of a competition.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

As well as the superb Stanley Park development.

The most expensive small hole in the ground in history.

 

[nmc]

I had the dubious pleasure of being involved in a commercial case a few years ago (as the technical/engineering advisor) and sat in on the QC's initial briefing. Despite him saying he thought the client had a good case, he strongly advised them to cut a deal both due to the costs and the vaguaries of the legal system meaning a win was by no means a foregone conclusion. Although a bit taken aback, the client took his advice and cut a deal.

I would be very surprised if Ferran/Soriano et al were quite so bullish if they hadn't had some fairly robust advice from the QC that they were on to a winner. However, as has been pointed out before - you never know until you get into the courtroom.

You make a good point and the fact that we have refused to accept a compromise 'technical breach' would seem to suggest that our legal team are very optimistic. I would also think that optimism must be based on a point in law rather than expecting CAS to jump a particular way - so maybe we are ultra confident re UEFA being out of time re reopening the investigation - and we are very confident the whole thing will be struck out. Of course as Steffan says why wouldn't this be picked up by the AC? And having had sight of the case why have CAS listed it for 3 days - if it could be over in half a day!

 

[oldius]

The most expensive small hole in the ground in history.

It's like the world's best-ever training facility, ready to house the best ever assembled team, playing for the club with the greatest history, with a boot room of more than a million pairs of boots because the micro-organisms, that can fill this stadium to the rafters with similar mini-beasts, often have many pairs of legs. Such a shame that only Uefa, and selected Breck Road mini beasts, can see it.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I had the dubious pleasure of being involved in a commercial case a few years ago (as the technical/engineering advisor) and sat in on the QC's initial briefing. Despite him saying he thought the client had a good case, he strongly advised them to cut a deal both due to the costs and the vaguaries of the legal system meaning a win was by no means a foregone conclusion. Although a bit taken aback, the client took his advice and cut a deal.

I would be very surprised if Ferran/Soriano et al were quite so bullish if they hadn't had some fairly robust advice from the QC that they were on to a winner. However, as has been pointed out before - you never know until you get into the courtroom.

That is often what happens but I think this time will be different. City know that cutting a deal will just add to the huge reputational damage we have already suffered. I believe our bosses want their day in court. It has become personal. I don't think the public comments made so far by Khaldoon and Soriano are a bluff. They have a lot of personal reputation invested in this case.