Champions League ban?

[Gordyola]

anyone got any idea how long it would take for an investigation and then decision and then ban to be implemented (If they go that route)

Years, as soon as they tried it the club would seek an injunction

 

[Marvin]

I don’t think the majority of City season ticket holders wouldn’t care.

Double negative intended?

 

[Blue Mist]

Years, as soon as they tried it the club would seek an injunction

I don't think they want to rush it anyway, the damage is the negative media we will constantly get over the next 3-5 years. UeFA (Gill etc) want everyone to hate us, to detract from our success and the best way to try and stop us is having this hanging around, mentioned in press conferences etc.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Don't know if this has been posted...

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I am astonished at some of the stuff written in this thread.

For positives about not being in the Champions League maybe ask the owner then the manager, and the players. The answer would be universal. FUCK ALL.

I get that UEFA are a bunch of cnuts and have on a number of occasions has our pants down, but so have the FA and the Premier League, yet the domestic competitions seem to be exempt from the silly attitude to the Champions league that is evident.

Until City win the Champions League those history clubs will not be quietened and rightly so. The Champions league is the biggest club competition on the planet. To be kicked out of it for a year would be nothing other than damaging to our club and our players careers.

What a load of bollocks honestly!

So should we sh@t ourselves, beg and panic or just have a fck them if that's what they want to do attitude?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

So should we sh@t ourselves, beg and panic or just have a fck them if that's what they want to do attitude?

we should try and win it, try our best tbh. He is right, the measure of this club on the global stage is the CL, we wont be accepted as one of the best teams without it unfortunately.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

we should try and win it, try our best tbh. He is right, the measure of this club on the global stage is the CL, we wont be accepted as one of the best teams without it unfortunately.

Obviously

 

[Cobwebcat]

Double negative intended?

Not really. I should have said I do think the majority would care!

I even think there are plenty of people who don’t attend would want to see it. Certainly more than the league cup.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

City may have been cash rich at the time but we needed the revenue for FFP purposes. It's nonsense to claim that City have inflated the deal from £8m to £67.5m pa. I don't care how the payment was routed through the UAE, Etihad have a very significant agreement with MCFC. Back in 2011 the same newspapers who carried the Der Spiegel allegations said it was worth £400m over 10 years. Liverpool, and Man Utd fans will believe any allegations made against MCFC even if they are just plain silly. I know what the purported e-mail says ("Please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG") but that, as any one with a GCSE in English can tell you, refers to how the monies is to be routed through to City, not who is ultimately liable for it. The original dispute over the Etihad deal was Not whether it was a related party, but whether it was fair-value.

There were two issues about Etihad; was it a related party and, if so, was the deal fair value. The latter only came into play if the former was true. UEFA's view, via PWC, was that Etihad was a related party but that the deal was fair value. We, along with our auditors BDO, disputed the view of Etihad as a related party but if the deal was fair value then that's irrelevant to a large degree.

However the key issue is who was funding Etihad if they weren't providing the funding directly and wholly out of their own funds. ADUG are definitely a related party as they are our ultimate owners via CFG. So if any of the money that's come from Etihad has come from ADUG then that would be classed as hidden owner investment and would well see us in an extremely vulnerable position. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that it hasn't, as ADUG would be stupid to do it that way. The money for the Etihad sponsorship came from the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. This came out as part of a case that's been running against the Gulf airlines accusing them of accepting state aid and it's in the public domain. As had been said on here ' His Highness' refers to Sheikh Mohammed (MBZ) not Sheikh Mansour.

That opens up a completely different set of calculations and I'd say that leaves us technically in the clear in terms of FFP although there's a new set of questions about disguised ownership and influence. This is a situation that UEFA simply didn't foresee; Abramovich funded Chelsea directly (at least we assume he did) and Qatar openly did the same for PSG. We came up with a much more subtle model of a personal owner but one who clearly had the full backing of the state. Good luck with that UEFA.

 

[baggy]

I hope they try to ban us and we take them to court.

There's surely plenty to expose from their end. That and we have more money than them.

I get the impression our owners won't take it lying down this time...