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

[nmc]

The OJ Simpson issue was due to civil and criminal courts having a different burden of proof. He wasn't found guilty in the criminal court but he was stripped of his last dime in the civil courts for exactly the same offence.

Wouldn’t the criminal case be before the civil case?

 

[projectriver]

This just me pondering things, but was thinking why there seems according to ric and tolmie, a fair amount of confidence around the club. Is it possible that we presented the irrefutable evidence, uefa accepted it and dropped the ban, but CAS still had to make a judgement on the uncooperative charge, and our defence of not trusting the confidentiality of UEFA I/C, with regards to a fine.
Obviously we can’t know but if a ban was ruled out during the hearing , due to our evidence it may explain the confidence that we will be in the champions league next season.
As I say complete speculation, guess we’ll know soon enough.

Not in my view, no.

 

[blueparrot]

Not in my view, no.

Thanks, not sure what I expected you to say though to be fair it was just my speculation on the confidence levels post hearing.

 

[mccity]

thats rubbish, the prosecution had irrefutable evidence on O.J. Simpso oh wait

If the allegations that Manchester City contravened UEFA's club licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations to do not fit, you must acquit!

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

Wouldn’t the criminal case be before the civil case?

They're 2 entirely different actions. You can take civil action without criminal charges being made or regardless of a criminal action being successful or otherwise.
I suppose the easiest analogy would be the case of a car accident where the police may or may not take action against 1 or more motorists but that action or inaction wouldn't prevent a civil claims being made. 2 different courts, 2 different burdens of proof and neither being dependent on the other (though a successful criminal prosecution would generally be very helpful to a following civil action).

 

[Sir peace frog]

If the allegations that Manchester City contravened UEFA's club licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations to do not fit, you must acquit!

WTF are you on about, i made a joke, that im now having to explain, fuck off hahaha

 

[kinkylolaCTID]

The following is directly copied from the Mediapart article linked earlier. We don't get to see the actual "we can do what we want" email just the bolded bit below:

Simon Pearce, a non-executive director at Manchester City, allegedly had another idea: “We could do a backdated contract for the next two years,” worth £5m a year, which “could be paid immediately”. Essentially modifying contracts.

How would the sponsors react to this? Pearce was apparently not worried: “the ones that I have real control over are Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority (ADTA) and Aabar… We can do what we want.”

Shortly thereafter, ADTA’s sponsorship fee goes up by £5.5m, Ethiad’s fee by £1.5m and Aabar’s by £500k. Chumillas writes: “We have decided with Simon Pearce to modify the terms of certain sponsorship contracts with AD (Abu Dhabi).”

An audit that was undertaken at the demand of UEFA in 2014 concluded that the value of the contracts with Manchester City’s four Abu Dhabi sponsors, which made them €140m a year, were worth half according to market value. The sponsors don’t care, according to Mediapart, as it is Sheikh Mansour who is secretly funding them. Already in 2010, Pearce had planned for a £15m contribution from Aabar, before reassuring the firm: “We have discussed it, the yearly contribution of Aabar will be £3m. The £12m remaining will come from another source procured by His Highness.”

Anyone else thinks this makes it seem like Pearce "A non-executive director at Manchester City" (important that he is a non executive Director?) floated an idea in an email. Talking about 'a crime' and committing 'a crime' are not the same thing. And if that's what we are being dinged for, and it straight up did not happen, and all of our published accounts back that up .... isn't that just open and shut?

I don't know, maybe I'm just an uninformed optimist.

 

[remember arthur mann]

 

[Sir peace frog]

children should be heard and not eeerm seen :)

 

[Proy]

I don't believe we have "irrefutable" evidence. Almost all evidence is refutable. Civil cases are decided by weighing both parties' evidence.

Understand that. Which is why I said insert whichever word you would like.

Would you say we had strong evidence?