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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stefan talked in the podcast about how City had until Saturday night to reach a settlement with UEFA. The fact they didn't is a decision that would have been taken with the input of everyone in the corporate hierarchy and our legal team. We're talking about maybe 15-20 incredibly intelligent people agreeing that CAS is a risk worth taking. There is an assumed ultra-confidence about our position.

Ferran states in the interview that Sheikh Mansour has invested everything to the point that it has been audited numerous times. Ferran is staking his own reputation on this challenge. An adverse outcome would inflict huge damage upon his personal reputation. One of the most interesting things he does say is that UEFA put undue emphasis on the emails. I genuinely do start to think that UEFA's case file is essentially just a copy of Der Spiegel. The hack uncovered millions of pages of information but the trail went dry after Pearce's email to Chumillas. The more I think about it, the more I think UEFA have nothing on us that isn't already in the public domain. I'm increasingly confident.

Didn't Stefan also suggest that EUFA may not have wanted a deal with City as they think their case is "Cast Iron"?
 
It does seem strange to me on the face of it given that the advice in such cases is never that you're certain to win, no matter how strong the position may seem. And the effect of Covid would seem to make a one-year ban less unpalatable now than when the AC handed down its decision nearly four months ago.

You don't think the lack of a settlement is more likely to be down to UEFA? In other words, being under pressure from influential stakeholders to come down hard on City, they prefer the CAS to be responsible for a more lenient outcome, even to the extent of a one-year ban, which allows them not to be accused of 'caving in'.

Well it depends how strong the case is in their perception. 1 year in the bag is better than losing. But overall I think they would take it - obviously guessing before someone posts that this thread is speculation (which it obviously is like virtually the entire forum).
 
Once the verdict is passed down, whatever it is, is that it or are we under the cosh for the next 5 years whereby they can revisit it?? Also, unless it’s a fine only (for lack of cooperation), but covered under a non-disclosure no guilt result, surely we will be in the PL crosshairs for sanctions, egged on of course by the hateful 8...
 
We don't need to have been involved in their creation. By accepting the invitation to play in tournaments governed by UEFA and its rules, I think we have a tough position arguing we haven't acquiesced by our conduct. And that is even if there is merit in challenging it. It seems obvious to me that no club has ever had a very strong legal opinion that it would likely win if it challenged the legality. I'm sure the case is "arguable" but thats not the same.

I take your point that if we are banned we may well need FFP to be relaxed to re-compete but all bets are off anyway because football is in financial crisis now. Likewise, we will legitimately be able to support some very large sponsorship contracts even with related parties when tested for market rate.

I cannot accept that participation is a proof of acceptance unless we admit the use of coercion. The cost of refusal is exclusion. A club is, therefore, excluded from a competition and a market because it does not consent to pre-entry conditions which deprive it of rights guaranteed by the law. FFP explicitly seeks to limit the investment an owner can make because it seeks to keep down transfer fees and player wages. The law prohibits any attempt to prevent or limit investment. That does seem the basis of a case which may be rather more than arguable.

The courts may show interest in the intention underlying FFP. The law makes no mention of any "sporting exception" and certainly doesn't invest the right to decide what one might be in UEFA. The claim that limits on investment are essential to guaranteeing a club's "financial stability" is so ludicrous as to be insulting, especially when the complete absence of any reference to dealing with debt (the original target) is highlighted. In fact clubs are under no obligation to repay debt and, it can be argued, FFP actually encourages debt financing as only the interest on loans has to be taken into account for break even calculations. The regulations do not achieve any of their avowed aims and in fact have a negative impact on the financial health of the game. Is football not better off without laws which spend so much of UEFA's time trying to ruin a club who's financial stability is in no way threatened? Pour encourager les autres? That's not a principle we value much or have ever done! If these rules are necessary to control entry to the CL why is every winner of that trophy this century riding high in the debtors' league?

It may be that legal opinion has been that a challenge is risky and we have all agreed over the recent past that recourse to the courts is risky, but circumstances change. I don't trust UEFA to "relax" the regulations in any positive way. In fact, the only response to the coronavirus world is to abolish them completely. If UEFA won't do it then a club has to force the issue. It might b City or it might be another club's crusade, one of the legion of clubs, which at long last realises the only answer to debt, the only way to growth and progress is investment. At the moment clubs have no answer so legal action is pointless.
 
It does seem strange to me on the face of it given that the advice in such cases is never that you're certain to win, no matter how strong the position may seem. And the effect of Covid would seem to make a one-year ban less unpalatable now than when the AC handed down its decision nearly four months ago.

You don't think the lack of a settlement is more likely to be down to UEFA? In other words, being under pressure from influential stakeholders to come down hard on City, they prefer the CAS to be responsible for a more lenient outcome, even to the extent of a one-year ban, which allows them not to be accused of 'caving in'.

That was precisely what I was thinking. I don’t think we should ever underestimate to what degree the tail wags the dog when it comes to the relationship between the cartel and UEFA
 
Jeez were you from my street, that's my whole childhood. Haven't heard anyone refer to rallivo since den, let alone spell it.

Sis-par-brick too. Its all rock paper scissors nowadays

Sis-pack-brick - classic!!

Ibble, Obble, chocolate bobble, ibble, obble, out.

Wring a dirty dishcloth inside out, if it shows, let it goes, ibble, obble, out.

That's how we used to pick 15-a-side games on the croft at Maine Road.

I'd be one of the last as one of the 'nippers'.

That FFP, though...
 
Last edited:
Of course it would be City in that context. I was responding to the post in terms of anyone who asked me who I supported?

I very rarely hear anyone from Manchester use the prefix for us.

Unless they are the type of person who brings their own toilet roll to a game.
Haha, sorry my mistake.
 
I cannot accept that participation is a proof of acceptance unless we admit the use of coercion. The cost of refusal is exclusion. A club is, therefore, excluded from a competition and a market because it does not consent to pre-entry conditions which deprive it of rights guaranteed by the law. FFP explicitly seeks to limit the investment an owner can make because it seeks to keep down transfer fees and player wages. The law prohibits any attempt to prevent or limit investment. That does seem the basis of a case which may be rather more than arguable.

The courts may show interest in the intention underlying FFP. The law makes no mention of any "sporting exception" and certainly doesn't invest the right to decide what one might be in UEFA. The claim that limits on investment are essential to guaranteeing a club's "financial stability" is so ludicrous as to be insulting, especially when the complete absence of any reference to dealing with debt (the original target) is highlighted. In fact clubs are under no obligation to repay debt and, it can be argued, FFP actually encourages debt financing as only the interest on loans has to be taken into account for break even calculations. The regulations do not achieve any of their avowed aims and in fact have a negative impact on the financial health of the game. Is football not better off without laws which spend so much of UEFA's time trying to ruin a club who's financial stability is in no way threatened? Pour encourager les autres? That's not a principle we value much or have ever done! If these rules are necessary to control entry to the CL why is every winner of that trophy this century riding high in the debtors' league?

It may be that legal opinion has been that a challenge is risky and we have all agreed over the recent past that recourse to the courts is risky, but circumstances change. I don't trust UEFA to "relax" the regulations in any positive way. In fact, the only response to the coronavirus world is to abolish them completely. If UEFA won't do it then a club has to force the issue. It might b City or it might be another club's crusade, one of the legion of clubs, which at long last realises the only answer to debt, the only way to growth and progress is investment. At the moment clubs have no answer so legal action is pointless.
One of the things that has disappointed me in this whole saga is that Wolves were one of the hateful eight and their wealthy owners will be hamstrung by FFP (if it stays in its current form) even more than we have been. Yet another case of taking short term gain (they hope) at the expense of long term pain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.