ICYMI - Seeing the Wood for FFPs - 2 part analysis (Semi-long reads)

[Exeter Blue I am here]

A 2 year ban on top of sanctions which have already been incurred for a £60m p.a sponsorship contract for stadium and shirts?

Ridiculous! Let us remember too that it was UEFA who changed their own rules and this has been documented and CAS will know this. Why have I never once read in the British football media an account of what UEFA did? Not once. And they think we are blinkered.

I am sure that city are right. However I think this is political and no one is going to do an Arab Sheikh a favour.

I know it’s ridiculous, and I think we are being punished for the (alleged) “lie” and the “attitude” in those hacked emails, rather than the amounts involved. Once you start going down the conspiracy route though, the more people that would have to be in on it, the less credible your claim becomes. There are undoubtedly those in UEFA seeking to influence opinion against us, but I’m not convinced the AC was stacked with them. I think it’s simply not going the way we anticipated - the human factor, rather than evidence and logic

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Cheers Stefan, your insight is greatly appreciated. I didn’t realise there might not even have been a hearing. There are some many imponderables for the laymen to get their heads around, it borders on mesmerising. I have next to no idea what’s going on, but I do get the vibe that the AC are not a bunch of cowboys and (from a City point of view) that worries me, assuming City did actually present the evidence they believed was irrefutable

We had not been invited to a personal hearing by the AC up to Xmas, despite them having had the case since mid-May.

It's akin to a Stalin-era show trial, where the charges are bogus, the outcome is known in advance and a legal defence is either perfunctory or non-existent.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

We had not been invited to a personal hearing by the AC up to Xmas, despite them having had the case since mid-May.

It's akin to a Stalin-era show trial, where the charges are bogus, the outcome is known in advance and a legal defence is either perfunctory or non-existent.

Curiously enough I’ve just started a piece on precisely that theme, based on Bill Browder’s book ‘Red Notice’, in which he ends up being tried in absentia by Putin’s crooks. Whether I can summon the energy to finish it is another matter. I’m utterly weary of it all PB

 

[domalino]

We had not been invited to a personal hearing by the AC up to Xmas, despite them having had the case since mid-May.

It's akin to a Stalin-era show trial, where the charges are bogus, the outcome is known in advance and a legal defence is either perfunctory or non-existent.

Curiously enough I’ve just started a piece on precisely that theme, based on Bill Browder’s book ‘Red Notice’, in which he ends up being tried in absentia by Putin’s crooks. Whether I can summon the energy to finish it is another matter. I’m utterly weary of it all PB

Hang on. The CAS appeal was filed in May (when the AC got the judgement) and only came in late November, so you wouldn't expect the AC to call us while we're trying to stop the hearing from ever happening.

I thought Stefan had confirmed the hearing was January 22nd. So if we weren't invited to that, it would be suspicious, until then I think it's normal and the delay was down to our CAS appeal.

 

[slbsn]

Hang on. The CAS appeal was filed in May (when the AC got the judgement) and only came in late November, so you wouldn't expect the AC to call us while we're trying to stop the hearing from ever happening.

I thought Stefan had confirmed the hearing was January 22nd. So if we weren't invited to that, it would be suspicious, until then I think it's normal and the delay was down to our CAS appeal.

The hearing was 22 Jan 2020. We don't know if it was private or attended by the parties. The AC Milan case shows that City will get an audio recording of the hearing if they didn't attend (if they want one and one exists).

 

[domalino]

The hearing was 22 Jan 2020. We don't know if it was private or attended by the parties. The AC Milan case shows that City will get an audio recording of the hearing if they didn't attend (if they want one and one exists).

I feel like if we had not been even invited to the hearing then it's the kind of thing Soriano would have thrown into his interview alongside the reliance on stolen emails and leaking, or we would have heard about it from journalists around the club. It would be such a ridiculous departure from a fair process the club would want it out there.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I feel like if we had not been even invited to the hearing then it's the kind of thing Soriano would have thrown into his interview alongside the reliance on stolen emails and leaking, or we would have heard about it from journalists around the club. It would be such a ridiculous departure from a fair process the club would want it out there.

Disappointing then that we (probably) attended and still got a 2 year ban. All we can do is trust the club re the integrity of our evidence, but, and this is assuming we didn’t hold anything back, it doesn’t augur well that our arguments appear to have been comprehensively rejected (“severe breaches”, etc etc)

 

[slbsn]

We know CAS will have a hearing - spot the difference

 

[remember arthur mann]

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Hang on. The CAS appeal was filed in May (when the AC got the judgement) and only came in late November, so you wouldn't expect the AC to call us while we're trying to stop the hearing from ever happening.

I thought Stefan had confirmed the hearing was January 22nd. So if we weren't invited to that, it would be suspicious, until then I think it's normal and the delay was down to our CAS appeal.

We were told that there was no dependency between the two. That they were completely independent events.

The timing though, with the AC publishing its verdict just days after CAS published the results of the hearing, suggests they weren't.