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

[PrezIke]

The leaks were obviously by someone or some people who mean to either put public pressure on UEFA to punish City regardless of legal issues with actually applying any, or to shame UEFA enough if they consider not punishing harshly enough, or even if UEFA does let City off "easy" at least shine negative light on them and City.

I know this may not be a popular take, but it may not be someone or some entity out to get "us" specifically (i.e. UEFA or David Gill) rather than what this individual or individuals -- particularly if they are far left leaning in their politics and apply this to sport -- who despise what City and "state owned clubs" as goes the mantra, stands for.

That's a hugely popular position in the UK/European football sports journalist world I read and listen to (far more than here in the U.S. where while there's been expressed concern about money in sport, it's far less talked about or part of journalists takes, who mostly avoid it. You could argue this is due to wage caps, btw). I also often find "right" leaning fans to oddly be highly socialist and loud about "balance of power" when it comes to sport, so they are also in this camp.

This is also a view held amongst all of the fans in these groups who loathe the "influence of money" on the sport, and see City as one of big baddies as key to this. In other words, it may simply be someone or some people who have a particular feeling about this and are angry at the notion of City "getting away" with a slap on the wrist following the Der Speigel leaks.

 

[Plain Speaking]

The biased BBC reporting on CAS and UEFA have got their latest article wrong.

Article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51483162
Has been written factually incorrect.
The article reports:
"The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) dismissed the club's claims, stating they were "groundless" and "unacceptable in tone".
In reality those comments were made by Mr Leterme, from UEFA, the organisation City were complaining about.
The article is incorrect, misleading and damaging to Manchester City football club.
There is institutional bias against Manchester City from the BBC and this is another example.

Please complain to the BBC if you want?

 

[nmc]

Yep it’s the armchair sky sports season ticket holders who believe all the shite the sun talk sport and sky sports news propaganda.

You only have to read the comments sections under the frequent ridiculous stories in the Daily Mail or the Sun. Thick Dippers and Rags taken in hook line and sinker.

 

[nmc]

Article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51483162
Has been written factually incorrectly.
It is Mr Leterme and UEFA who have dismissed the club's claims, stating they were "groundless" and "unacceptable in tone" not CAS.
The article is incorrect misleading and damaging to Manchester City football club.
There is institutional bias against Manchester City from the BBC and this is another example.

Please feel free to complain to BBC?

Just filed yet another complaint to the BBC. They’ll reply saying it’s not their fault.

 

[Garry's Coock]

Just filed yet another complaint to the BBC. They’ll reply saying it’s not their fault.

Complain to Ofcom, they not only regulate the BBC but now also regulate the internet

 

[blue cigar]

Do we leak our side of the story and if not, why not? I mean details and discussions that have taken place with uefa etc

 

[half & half derby scarf]

Article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51483162
Has been written factually incorrectly.
It is Mr Leterme and UEFA who have dismissed the club's claims, stating they were "groundless" and "unacceptable in tone" not CAS.
The article is incorrect misleading and damaging to Manchester City football club.
There is institutional bias against Manchester City from the BBC and this is another example.

Please feel free to complain to BBC?

They will definitely have to withdraw that article for getting so much factually incorrect. I suspect the club will already be considering legal action against them if it is not withdrawn pronto.

 

[nmc]

Read again and a few more bits worth highlighting.

UEFA reopened the case into us following leaks from Der Spiegel, Reuters and Mediapart. That was the basis for them feeling able to do so desire our previous agreement and the time limit on reopening.

CAS feel that our allegation that UEFA themselves, or an associated and interested party with conflicting interests to those of Manchester City, facilitated these leaks, to enable them to reopen their case, is not without merit.

They also state that the Chief Investigator's comments on dismissing our concerns when raised out of hand were puzzling. That is because he or his organisation were accused of leaking information (the articles states specifically from a UEFA source) and thus the whole process was broken, and he didn't blink an eye, or start an internal investigation or even refer to any processes to prevent such circumstances. He was confident enough to just dismiss it out of hand, without explaining or asking questions of his own organisation, to what is actually a pretty serious allegation.

The biggest issue for us, and the CAS document states this specifically, is that we have not presented sufficient evidence that the leaks came from UEFA. Indeed, we contradicted ourselves by saying that the leaks could influence the decision, yet the decision was already known and leaked.

So, what happens next?


UEFA claim they have not yet made a decision. In fact, they claim they have not refused to pause the investigation as city requested. So there could be a pause whilst the leaks are investigated.

City's claim for damages and a full investigation into UEFA and the leaks is inadmissible by CAS. But that is because CAS is the wrong forum in which to do this. City could go to an Ordinary Arbitration Proceeding to force this action.

UEFA could come to a decision and pass judgement, any ban or fine likely to be challenged by city, so again back to CAS. But this time CAS would have to rule one way or the other as the AC would have competed it's role.

UEFA could drop the investigation due to lack of evidence, or impose a suspended ban or fine. They could therefore claim any leak was therefore evidently false, and discourage an independent investigation or referral to the OAP. But they'd have egg on their face given that their own investigation found enough to ask the AC to sit and rule on a suitable punishment for City.

Edit.. oh, and one last option. City ask for a settlement and take a reduced punishment. Hardly worth mentioning.

A further point not covered by CAS at this stage is the rushed UEFA process to recommend punishment, which I understand City were NOT asked to present any evidence to. It’ll be interesting to see how UEFA defend that as a balanced and reasonable process. Looks smells and feels like a kangaroo court.

 

[nmc]

The rag staffer obviously hasn’t read it properly and gets it completely wrong

It is 35 pages. Imagine reading aloud with your finger under those big words - takes ages.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Fuck me that's a whopper right there The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) dismissed the club's claims, stating they were "groundless" and "unacceptable in tone". so not Leterme/UEFA then?

This was my initial thought.

Shouldn’t those quotes should be attributed to UEFA and not CAS?

And didn’t CAS call the leaks “worrisome”?

So essentially, the fact the BBC have completely misquoted CAS, they’re either deliberately misrepresenting the truth in order to damage City’s reputation, or they’re just incompetent morons?