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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
waspish said:
Only thing we no for a fact is there sponsor was assessed and it’s fair value was calculated as 7m they ended up getting it at 100m take say half that away and they fail ffp.
Click to expand...
Maybe but 7m sounds nonsense to me. The whole FFP procedure and rules are flawed and the fact they got cleared and we didn't the blame should be directed at UEFA not PSG.. Thats what fans of other clubs do to us through their ignorance, we shouldn’t stoop to that.
 
blueparrot said:
Maybe but 7m sounds nonsense to me. The whole FFP procedure and rules are flawed and the fact they got cleared and we didn't the blame should be directed at UEFA not PSG.. Thats what fans of other clubs do to us through their ignorance, we shouldn’t stoop to that.
Click to expand...

Yeah when I read 7m thought that was a big low so 50m is fair and even with that they fail ffp! Knowing how corrupt Uefa is someone got a brown envelope and let that 10 day pass I guess
 
Nails said:
Not sure it's a conspiracy from Conn - he's just a bit thick.
Click to expand...
No he isn't thick but he must think football fans are. He knows full well what conclusion he came to a few days ago, and now he says the exact opposite thinking no one will notice
 
Ever since 2009 there has been a widespread belief throughout football that some form of financial regulation is necessary coupled with a more widespread belief that FFP is no more than a series of protectionist measures to help a cartel maintain itself at the pinnacle of the football pyramid. The rouble is that most other ideas on what form regulation should take suffer from failings not dissimilar to those of FFP. The clue is in its misleading name. Is FFP to establish a professional game where every club can compete on equal terms or is it purely to prevent clubs going bust and force them to make a profit. It's impossible to do both at the same time. The problem for those who wish to regulate to introduce a golden age of perfect fair play (what actually does it mean?) find that their schemes level down to enable the weakest to have a fair chance. How do you establish a salary cap where Stockport County can spend as much as Arsenal? How do you limit transfer spending so that Exeter City can spend as much as Newcastle United? But there is another problem, and it is the one we criticise FFP for: that competition law prohibits any limitation on investment and wages and transfer fees are simply mechanisms which allow clubs to invest in assets for the club. The further difficulty is that EU competition law does not concern itself with the origin of the funds for investment and thus debt is a valid way of financing investment. But I think this may be the only way that the game will get the courts to accept a "sporting exception" to the rules on investment, and that is to insist that all investment must real investment in the club. At the moment Chelsea's owner has loaned the club over £1 billion, not all of it to buy and pay players. Many of the players have now ceased to play! Some now play for other clubs! But Chelsea have not bought any of the players in any real sense because the cash has gone through the club's books but not really through the club. This is debt financing and it doesn't strengthen the club but actually weakens it since repayment is not scheduled and is likely to be demanded at the worst possible time in the club's fortunes. There have to be measures in place to show that clubs can guarantee repayment whether this is from an owner's funds or some other source. Guarantees are not easy to provide since repayment is deferred...

None of this is relevant to CAS and won't help our appeal which at the moment is our sole priority. I would remind posters who want us to settle scores with all kinds of bent officials that Ferran has reminded us of our real target and that is the allegations made by UEFA which the evidence we have presented to CAS proves "are simply not true".
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
None of this is relevant to CAS and won't help our appeal which at the moment is our sole priority. I would remind posters who want us to settle scores with all kinds of bent officials that Ferran has reminded us of our real target and that is the allegations made by UEFA which the evidence we have presented to CAS proves "are simply not true".
Click to expand...

And by proving that the process was flawed or corrupt the target will be those who have corrupted the process, for the bent officials not to get caught in the crossfire they have to acquiesce to our assertion that we have been targeted by a self protectionist cabal of rogues.

It amounts to the same thing bud.
 
blueparrot said:
Sounds like the fans of other clubs talking about us, you don’t know anything about what PSG have or haven’t done.
Click to expand...
I find our own accusations hard enough to keep up with. There is so much reading to be done to have yourself educated on the subject.

I really haven’t the time or inclination to keep up to the minute on all things PSG.

But Parisian does I’m sure, although why he spends his time on here defending them is anyone’s guess.

One thing’s for sure, we should all know that if we’re only relying on the usual media for PSG info without time to do the detective work, then maybe we shouldn’t jump in too quickly.


Personally unless it’s evidence of them hanging us, I don’t take much notice of their dealings with UEFA.
 
Ric said:
Not sure what Frankfurt’s beef with UEFA is, but I like the sentiment:
Click to expand...

In Europe they get all shirty with UEFA over fines that clubs are handed for pyrotechnics displays by their fans.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
It’s FACT that their sponsorship deal was overvalued by 93m based on an independent analysis versus the figure Leterme decided to go with. Whilst that’s not proof of paying Leterme off, the only logical conclusion is that Leterme was acting with PSG’s, or rather his mate Nasser Al-Khelaifa’s best interests in mind. And a likely reward for doing that would be sort form of bribe, be it money or otherwise.
Click to expand...
How is it a fact exactly ?

In Panja article and after several requests, he is unable to give a number to the alleged figure Leterme has decided to go with.

Given QTA has been decreased to 58 M from 100 M, i wonder how an independent analysis can conclude the sponsorship deal was overvalued by 93 M. Should PSG be the one paying their sponsor ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top