Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

Is there a case for double indemnity ? We have been subject to an investigation , found guilty and paid the fines issued , surely they cannot legally revisit the same accusations along with the fact they have stolen evidence , which will not be admitable in any proceedings . I've got a Rag aquaintence (never a friend :)who is getting all excited that we will be relegated to division three (similar ruling to Rangers in Scotland) and then stripped of all our trophies since 2008. He was informed that if we were demoted to the evo -stick league , we would still have 30-40,000 turning up at the Etihad , because we've been there (only third tier actually) had the t-shirt and the inflatable banana. On the bright side ive got about 20 grounds to complete the 92 current league clubs , so every cloud.
 
Interesting article: https://www.goal.com/en/news/football-leaks-how-are-man-city-and-psg-affected-by-ffp/2qjvli23qd1y15gwx5nx1rbgf

Dr Garcia (football finance expert) concurs: "UEFA knows that Financial Fair Play is on shaky legal grounds and then UEFA has a decision to make, do they lower the penalty or do they impose the full penalty and then go to court and defend the full system."
Lower the penalty for what? This email trail references a period for which we have already been sanctioned, and as Der Spiegel explained in pt 4, City are now profitable or self-sustaining.
 
Is there a case for double indemnity ? We have been subject to an investigation , found guilty and paid the fines issued , surely they cannot legally revisit the same accusations along with the fact they have stolen evidence , which will not be admitable in any proceedings . I've got a Rag aquaintence (never a friend :)who is getting all excited that we will be relegated to division three (similar ruling to Rangers in Scotland) and then stripped of all our trophies since 2008. He was informed that if we were demoted to the evo -stick league , we would still have 30-40,000 turning up at the Etihad , because we've been there (only third tier actually) had the t-shirt and the inflatable banana. On the bright side ive got about 20 grounds to complete the 92 current league clubs , so every cloud.

Depends entirely on the terms of the settlement agreement, which are confidential. You would think that UEFA compromised their ability to look further at this just as much as we compromised our ability to avoid sanction by entering into the agreement. But the agreement might have contained a 'full and frank disclosure' provision, so it might have been settled explicitly on the basis that MCFC undertook that it had provided a complete full frank and clear account of its financial circumstances and there was nothing more to be said. If that sort of clause was in there, and the emails are genuine, the case could be re-opened.

But I really doubt it. I doubt City would have agreed to settle on any basis other than that this was full and final settlement of any liability.
 
Is there a case for double indemnity ? We have been subject to an investigation , found guilty and paid the fines issued , surely they cannot legally revisit the same accusations along with the fact they have stolen evidence , which will not be admitable in any proceedings . I've got a Rag aquaintence (never a friend :)who is getting all excited that we will be relegated to division three (similar ruling to Rangers in Scotland) and then stripped of all our trophies since 2008. He was informed that if we were demoted to the evo -stick league , we would still have 30-40,000 turning up at the Etihad , because we've been there (only third tier actually) had the t-shirt and the inflatable banana. On the bright side ive got about 20 grounds to complete the 92 current league clubs , so every cloud.
We failed FFP and missed the maximum allowable deviation by something like £78m. Do you think UEFA will be getting a hard-on because we really failed by £10m/£20m more than that?

If we're genuinely self-sustaining these days then UEFA won't really be too interested in re-opening this I'm sure.
 
Looking at Bayern's income, it actually went down in 2017 compared to 2016. They aren't getting more from matchday revenues, they've maxed out their media income from domestic and UEFA prize money and their commercial income is already the highest in the football world so that's not shooting up either, whereas we've still got some upside.

They're in danger of falling down the European pecking order, like the Milan teams, as their wage bill is about 2/3rd's of ours and the other clubs up there so they're not able to attract the top rank of world players. A Super League is their only chance to increase income and stay relevant.
Don't panic.....they don't like it up 'em.


Copyright Corporal Jones 1969 or so.
 
There’s obviously a backlog of legit emails validating the articles, otherwise Der Speigel would be bankrupted by damages paid out to City and PSG.

There will be a ban from European competition, minimum; this is UEFA’s last chance to keep the prestigious revenue generators within their dependently-lucrative competitions - they’re not going to facilitate the breakaway Super League by pandering to two wealthy clubs who’ve been exposed as being ‘creative’ with their accounting and revenue.

If Infantino was still part of UEFA, then they might have felt compelled to resist, but him since leaving the organisation allows them to scapegoat him, and for the current President to score brownie points for restoring the organisation’s reputation and ethics.

Cool story, bro.

Uefa have already responded to enquiries that it was dealt with at the time and can't comment further due to the agreement we reached.

All the alleged emails relate to that time and were stolen, so can't legally be even used.
 

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.