citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,445
What did we do that was 'clearly wrong'?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FIFA investigation: No transfer ban
- Thread starter roxy
- Start date
PrezIke
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry mate, I haven't got a clue what any of that means?
Apologies if that didn't make sense. I'll try to explain better.
There's a legal argument that City would likely win in court because the Football Leaks documents were obtained illegally, no? We also already settled with UEFA who via this agreement acknowledged that we broke FFP rules and would accept the fine and smaller squad size.
A number of our outspoken fans on Twitter who appear to understand legal matters/accounting/running a club suggest City won't be banned because UEFA's legal argument is not strong and we could sue them (I believe).
My point is such a lawsuit will make the club look even poorer in the eyes of the public because even if the documents were obtained illegally, and there was a settlement, is anyone arguing what City did isn't true? Trying to hide behind a technicality in court, when we are already dealing with a constant barrage of negative press would make us look even worse, possibly, to the public and we would be smeared significantly. Is that what the club wants to help it grow?
With the PSG FFP revelations in Tariq Panja's piece in the NY Times on how they got away with no punishment for the summer of Neymar and Mbappe, UEFA are under even more pressure to do something about the Football Leaks "revelations" with City because of what appears to be some form of corruption (disagreement between one body who felt they clearly violated FFP, vs. the former Belgian PM, Yves Leterme, who disagreed and ironically enough is the lead investigator/decision maker in our case now, and who many are led to believe dislikes us).
And of course Yves Leterme, ironically enough, is the one who is deciding our fate and the other NY Times article is very set on punishing us/giving us a CL ban.
He looks quite bad from the PSG investigation. You think he will want to do the same thing (i.e. let us walk with little to no punishment) after that it was revealed he let PSG walk when the former judge who helped investigate PSG, Cunha Rodrigues said, “The decision to close the case, was manifestly erroneous.”?
That is what has me concerned.
Yeah, I don't think so either. Maybe within UEFA member nations, but I doubt it.
IMO with the latest revelations regarding PSG avoiding FFP punishment, however, I can't see us avoiding a CL ban.
I know there's the "legal" argument against it, but politically, for City to go to court over it I would think it cost a lot of money. This hurts the club's bottom line and therefore ability to meet FFP. The political fallout for the club could also be rather harmful.
For CFG to go to court on a technicality when you know you actually did something that is clearly wrong is risky to the club's reputation. Yes even if we believe FFP is designed to get "us" we are well aware that most of the public does not agree with us and sees us as the big bad boogie man that's "state owned" and "ruining football."
Average football fans may dislike UEFA, and feel they are corrupt, but they are the governing body who they are aware can punish us. They saw PSG get away with it and now know they really did get off on a technicality that reeks of corruption. If they feel that can happen, then UEFA also gets political capital to cover their mistakes, and fans an arguably false sense of satisfaction for once about City and PSG who most hate more than any club, despite the hypocrisy of this for RM, Barca, Utd...we all get that.
Feels to me we have to be the club that falls on the sword or is made an example of by UEFA to maintain what flimsy respect they have left.
City taking uefa to court will not effect our ffp its like building a new stand that wont effect ffp.
PrezIke
Well-Known Member
What did we do that was 'clearly wrong'?
It is outlined in the Football Leaks documents/emails, but as far as I understand we tried to cover up or over-inflate or create "shadow groups" that generated some key sources of revenue to the club in order to meet FFP rules. Here's a quote from The Guardian about what was written in Der Spiegel:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...y-uefa-investigation-ffp-champions-league-ban
The most serious allegation was that City disguised investment by the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al- Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, and represented it as sponsorship by the country’s airline, Etihad.
So, "getting away" with this on a "technicality" is quite normal if you're a wealthy person or company with fantastic lawyers, but the public fallout has to be worth it. When you are a highly public company who depends on popularity via heavy media coverage like a football club, this is not good for the bottom line, I gather. the general way to deal with it is accept some form of punishment in a settlement (Think Erin Brockovich or Monsonto) so you can move on.
But we already settled and lied further in that settlement. This looks even worse.
If we decide to not care about the public fallout then so be it. I accept that, but not sure the club wants to take that risk even if we are acting like we are. Not sure if who is bluffing and feels a bit like a game of chicken.
PrezIke
Well-Known Member
City taking uefa to court will not effect our ffp its like building a new stand that wont effect ffp.
I gladly stand corrected. Cheers. I forgot that certain aspects of spending don't count.
Telegraph.
Fifa accused of 'astonishing' leniency after fining Manchester City for breaching rules on transfers of schoolchildren
The comparative leniency of Monday’s sanction was branded “astonishing” last night by a lawyer and agent who has represented schoolboy players being pursued by clubs in the world’s richest league.
Dan Chapman, head of the sports and employment teams at Leathes Prior, told the Daily Telegraph:
Fifa accused of 'astonishing' leniency after fining Manchester City for breaching rules on transfers of schoolchildren
The comparative leniency of Monday’s sanction was branded “astonishing” last night by a lawyer and agent who has represented schoolboy players being pursued by clubs in the world’s richest league.
Dan Chapman, head of the sports and employment teams at Leathes Prior, told the Daily Telegraph:
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
So we have minors and now children,could they make it sound worse lol,next they will be saying we kidnapped them and kept them locked in a cellar between playing
I look forward to people trafficking being added to the next edition of City Bingo.....
It is outlined in the Football Leaks documents/emails, but as far as I understand we tried to cover up or over-inflate or create "shadow groups" that generated some key sources of revenue to the club in order to meet FFP rules. Here's a quote from The Guardian about what was written in Der Spiegel:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...y-uefa-investigation-ffp-champions-league-ban
So, "getting away" with this on a "technicality" is quite normal if you're a wealthy person or company with fantastic lawyers, but the public fallout has to be worth it. When you are a highly public company who depends on popularity via heavy media coverage like a football club, this is not good for the bottom line, I gather. the general way to deal with it is accept some form of punishment in a settlement (Think Erin Brockovich or Monsonto) so you can move on.
But we already settled and lied further in that settlement. This looks even worse.
If we decide to not care about the public fallout then so be it. I accept that, but not sure the club wants to take that risk even if we are acting like we are. Not sure if who is bluffing and feels a bit like a game of chicken.
Leaked emails hey this what you relying on. :/
PrezIke
Well-Known Member
Just to go back to what I said about our lovely friend Yves Leterme, who let PSG go, and remind us of what he said as quoted in that Guardian article:
In fairness, this could also just be the usual statement he has to make publicly, as otherwise what is the point of having the CFCB. However, as I also alluded to, the PSG revelations came after this and he was exposed as being soft on PSG.
How might that affect his approach towards City?
He needs to cover his arse as does UEFA/CFCB, if you ask me, and we are the obvious choice to be next in line to be the fall guy.
The chairman of Uefa’s club financial control body (CFCB), Yves Leterme, said this year that if the allegations published by Der Spiegel are true, and City are found to be in breach of rules and to have deceived Uefa, the “heaviest punishment” possible is “exclusion from Uefa competitions”.
In fairness, this could also just be the usual statement he has to make publicly, as otherwise what is the point of having the CFCB. However, as I also alluded to, the PSG revelations came after this and he was exposed as being soft on PSG.
How might that affect his approach towards City?
He needs to cover his arse as does UEFA/CFCB, if you ask me, and we are the obvious choice to be next in line to be the fall guy.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
That is an allegation not proof of anything,trust the club has the evidence it needs,as for popularity,it's not going to stop us growing our fan base,fans are only interested in what the team does and the trophies we win,the club has said very forcefully we have done nothing wrong and have hit the first,we wouldn't do that for the fun of itIt is outlined in the Football Leaks documents/emails, but as far as I understand we tried to cover up or over-inflate or create "shadow groups" that generated some key sources of revenue to the club in order to meet FFP rules. Here's a quote from The Guardian about what was written in Der Spiegel:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...y-uefa-investigation-ffp-champions-league-ban
So, "getting away" with this on a "technicality" is quite normal if you're a wealthy person or company with fantastic lawyers, but the public fallout has to be worth it. When you are a highly public company who depends on popularity via heavy media coverage like a football club, this is not good for the bottom line, I gather. the general way to deal with it is accept some form of punishment in a settlement (Think Erin Brockovich or Monsonto) so you can move on.
But we already settled and lied further in that settlement. This looks even worse.
If we decide to not care about the public fallout then so be it. I accept that, but not sure the club wants to take that risk even if we are acting like we are. Not sure if who is bluffing and feels a bit like a game of chicken.