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.
Technically I feel the NYT opinion piece, if true, represents a weakening of the allegations against City but I don't think we're operating on a level playing field where the law and regulation are the only thing that matters. We're deeply unpopular Arab money that can help clean the image of regulators sullied by a corrupt past. It's good for a regulator's image to be seen to fight people like us.

Overall I am encouraged. I can handle a charge of non-compliance with the spirit of regulation. That to me is far more minor than nefarious inflation of sponsorship agreements.

I get that, but the Arab money and wanting to clean up football by making an example of us can be done by CAS potentially. But a High Court purely looks at the procedural grounds for a verdict. Whether the right processes were undertaken. At that point, they will deem any sanctions as unlawful if the process has been biased against us or stronger than previously simply because of where our owners are from. Similarly, it will review the original decision amd sanctions by UEFA and no doubt see that we have alreasy been punished and the new information (if there is any) did not impact those sanctions.
 
I take your point.
I shouldn’t have said anything.
I’m not wrong though, I assure you.
I hope nothing happens and nothing comes out. You’ll probably never believe me but I can live with that. Let’s just leave it there.
To assure anyone you need to produce some hard facts and evidence and not just your hunches. You have not informed anyone on here and have invited the WUM speculation.
 
And had you started your initial post with the words "In my opinion ..." instead of jumping in with two feet,then maybe you would not have received so many negative posts.

Then I would be lying because it isn’t ‘my opinion’. I know for a fact how the leak was obtained as I said earlier. You know for a fact I couldn’t disclose how I know this on an open forum without throwing somebody under the bus. Therefore you and others refuse to believe me without this. I get that. I’d probably be the same but I wouldn’t go for someone like you lot have. Perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered. I’ve been burnt like this before on here and obviously haven’t learnt my lesson.

‘I fear the worst’ *is* my opinion and I hope I am wrong.

The funny thing is that if I was chatting to some of you at the match or in the pub (which may well have happened for all we know) you wouldn’t talk to me face to face like you have on here so take a look at yourselves. Those that go home and away will probably know me or at least know my face.
Fine, you don’t believe what I’ve passsed on and you don’t agree with my opinion. Don’t insult me or ridicule me, it’s unnecessary internet shite hunting in packs .
I won’t lose any sleep over you dismissing me and like I said I’m more than willing to discuss again if and when it all comes out.

I’m going to carry on enjoy our successes this week so just move on and we’ll revisit in the coming months.
 
No link, but you know the line and the narrative taken by BBC Sport.

———————————————————————————————————————

However, according to one well-placed source, a final decision is yet to be made by chief investigator Yves Leterme.

The former Belgian prime minister, chairman of the investigatory panel of Uefa's independent financial control board, is set to make a recommendation this week.

With no vote in such cases, the final say lies with him but several of his colleagues are understood to have firmly expressed the view at a recent meeting that a season-long ban would be a suitable punishment if City are found guilty. (more of the article at British Biased Sport)

520-DB695-A81-F-4079-B5-AB-934-B3654-B205.png
 
You referred to Qatar supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (they don't "support" them, they have given Asylum to some of the leaders when they were illegally deposed from Egypt. I referenced their legality as Qatar's "support" for the MB was often referred to as "supporting terrorism" by the Illegal Blockaders when the rest of the world doesn't class them as terrorists. The reason the UAE and Egypt and KSA classify them as terrorists is because the called for free and open democratic elections across the Muslim world (including Qatar) and they made the point that the wealthiest nations in the region shouldn't see the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of half a dozen families. Obviously, following the Arab Spring, the rulers of KSA and UAE shat themselves and fought back against any individual or entity that they believed may pose a threat to their hegemony.

This is not true; it is evident that your information has no debt at all on the situation cause the problem is not new; it goes back to probably more than 30 years or even more. And it is not limited to the election in Egypt; It is differences in ideology.
The authorities in the UAE have arrested a Muslims Brotherhood cell that was planning to overturn the government in the UAE and have been tried because, as I have told you, they have the goal of establishing an Islamic regime that puts them at the top of the rule in the Arab world.


Al Jazeera is a news outlet and is the most balanced and trustworthy in the Middle East. KSA and UAE have taken issue with some of the reporting as they prefer to portray their own tailored image. It is not balanced at all, because it does not cover anything happen in Qatar. How it is balanced when it never covers any issues related to the freedom of speech in Qatar?
In Qatar, a poet was imprisoned for delivering a poem. In Qatar, passports were withdrawn from more than 6,000 people because they belong to a tribe of a man who was involved in a coup attempt by the former emir. However, Al-Jazeera does not talk about the country and the violations in Qatar. Al Jazeera did not speak about the inhumane treatment of workers in Qatar. So to say that it is a neutral channel is far from the truth.

It is because I do know the situation that I take it "so sensitively". Unlike you, I am not an Emirati, I am not spoon fed by a state media, I am not lied to on a daily basis about what the situation is and I am not liable to 20 years imprisonment for showing support for Qatar on social media, which is something that you could be prosecuted for. When your leaders brought in that law, did not think "Hang on a minute, if we are the good guys, then why has my government brought in this law to punish me if I say something on Facebook in support of our brother GCC nation?" Doesn't exactly smack of being a right and normal law does it?
Do not insult me by saying that I am spoon fed. I told you that no GCC country is a democratic country. My case is simple and is not complicate. Do not pretend to be a free speech country when you are not.
No, it is that these countries do not respect the Sovereignty of another country. Qatar is its own country. Qatar can offer asylum to whoever the fuck it wants, as can every other nation on Earth. Qatar can have its own media like every other nation on Earth. Al Jazeera is well respected throughout the world and if the UAE or KSA is unhappy with the reporting of worker rights or democracy or corruption then they can always improve their records in such things. If they are upset that Al Jazeera doesn't report on such things within Qatar, then they are free to set up their own news outlets to do likewise.
Qatar is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and these countries have security treaties to protect the security of the GCC countries, so when members do not respect these agreements and instead establish alliances with a group that wants to make a coup in those countries is undoubtedly hostile action and any nation will not accept it and will not be tolerated.
As for the MB setting up secret political groups in those countries, so fucking what? The region could use some democracy rather than Saudi led Wahhabi Islam which is currently a cancer on the world. Whilst we are at it, KSA complaining about MB wanting Islamic rules is a bit rich when they stone adulterers to death, have atheism as a capital offence and have executed more citizens per capita than any other country in the world.

KSA is the worst, most despotic country on the face of the Earth and it's shameful that the UK is complicit in the genocide being perpetrated in Yemen in their proxy war with Iran.
My argument is not which one is worse! I am not her conducting a comparison; I am just trying to make you understand the basic of this Conflict

.
 
That is if you assume that a rich Arab Sheikh can get a fair trial in a case of a regulator acting to enforce financial fair play.

I thought the NY opinion/news report was good news for us but we still face serious forces/problems here, and we're not operating on a level playing field. We've got old money and the ancien regime acting against a new entrant demonised as "corrupt, anti-democratic human rights abusers."
Agree with regards to the trial , but it doesn’t really suit either side for it to go that far

Which is why I don’t think we will receive any punishment that forces our hand

Unfortunately for us fans that means we have to ride this one out and it’s left to us to try and defend the good name of the club.

It’s tiresome and predictable that they release these stories at the moment we should be celebrating the greatest team and manager that this country has ever seen
 
No link, but you know the line and the narrative taken by BBC Sport.

———————————————————————————————————————

However, according to one well-placed source, a final decision is yet to be made by chief investigator Yves Leterme.

The former Belgian prime minister, chairman of the investigatory panel of Uefa's independent financial control board, is set to make a recommendation this week.

With no vote in such cases, the final say lies with him but several of his colleagues are understood to have firmly expressed the view at a recent meeting that a season-long ban would be a suitable punishment if City are found guilty. (more of the article at British Biased Sport)

520-DB695-A81-F-4079-B5-AB-934-B3654-B205.png
Dan the Dipper Roan must have been nursing a semi writing this.
 
From the same article.

Just before the FA Cup Final.

What a f***ing surprise!

***********************

Uefa's adjudicatory chamber would have to decide whether it agreed with any recommendation from Leterme - expected in the next 48 hours -
 
The biggest hit on this if true is PEP he has stated he believes there is no truth in this story If wrong doing found he could walk
 
The biggest hit on this if true is PEP he has stated he believes there is no truth in this story If wrong doing found he could walk

Khaldoon and Soriano wouldn’t lie to Pep.

If the club had done anything wrong, they would have told him by now.

Do you honestly think Pep would walk, after all he has built, and after he has witnessed the continued Vendetta against City at first hand.

His comments about the press in this country being a tiny example of what he knows.

He knows what’s going on, and who’s involved from UEFA and the cartel clubs.
 
Sorry, but the NY Times is a serious investigative newspaper and would not go about allowing such an article to be published without having real reason to believe it's sources to be legit.

I cannot see them ever being in the business of smearing City over Liverpool and Utd because they are American owned and risking their entire reputation over a sports article.

This is beyond fanciful and sad that we are at a point in time where this kind of reasoning is accepted as plausible nor can we parse the difference between those who post things on Twitter or periodicals" without strong cheques and balances within/reluctance to publish news without strong evidence versus a newspaper with such standing as the NY Times (not that the NY Times cannot be criticised, btw).
No one is suggesting that the New York Times has deliberately set out to smear City. They are just reporting what is an interesting story. The question is who is leaking the information and ensuring it hits the public domain at a time which damages City the most. I am certain that our commercial rivals are involved.
 
Then I would be lying because it isn’t ‘my opinion’. I know for a fact how the leak was obtained as I said earlier. You know for a fact I couldn’t disclose how I know this on an open forum without throwing somebody under the bus. Therefore you and others refuse to believe me without this. I get that. I’d probably be the same but I wouldn’t go for someone like you lot have. Perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered. I’ve been burnt like this before on here and obviously haven’t learnt my lesson.

‘I fear the worst’ *is* my opinion and I hope I am wrong.

The funny thing is that if I was chatting to some of you at the match or in the pub (which may well have happened for all we know) you wouldn’t talk to me face to face like you have on here so take a look at yourselves. Those that go home and away will probably know me or at least know my face.
Fine, you don’t believe what I’ve passsed on and you don’t agree with my opinion. Don’t insult me or ridicule me, it’s unnecessary internet shite hunting in packs .
I won’t lose any sleep over you dismissing me and like I said I’m more than willing to discuss again if and when it all comes out.

I’m going to carry on enjoy our successes this week so just move on and we’ll revisit in the coming months.
Believe me I would talk to you exactly as I have done on this forum.
Its very easy for people to say "I know this for a fact ..." which then becomes confrontational for obvious reasons.
Bearing that in mind you must have very good connections with someone at the Club,a journo who has close contacts with someone from UEFA,or someone within the legal profession (sporting side)
By the way,as an individual I for one do not "hunt in packs", but you`ve hardly done yourself any favours ... something which you seem to have acknowledged.
 
The biggest hit on this if true is PEP he has stated he believes there is no truth in this story If wrong doing found he could walk
What are the allegations now? That is unclear. According to one paragraph in one newspaper, which it is dangerous to rely on too much, it is that City acted conspiratorially to UEFA regulation. Big deal. I would expect an organisation who saw the goalposts being moved at the last minute to do exactly that.

This is the Pep Guardiola who supports politicians jailed by the Spanish state?
 
@Millennium until you learn to quote, I have no interest in wading through that load of shite to try see your replies.

I stand by my previous postings.
Nothing new in this was always the likely outcome if found to have broken the rules as reported months ago but nothing has been reported till now, more media City haters trying to discredit us after stuffing the scousers who they love and hoping it effects the team before the FA cup final to stop us completing a unique treble I can read this lot like a book.
 
Don't have the slightest issue with the journalism here, it seems carefully couched and there's no doubt there is a story here. Shooting the messenger is daft.

I have no doubts there are elements in UEFA who are out to get City to protect the positions of the established cartel - why object to someone reporting on that?

Equally, I'm sure City have done their level best to circumvent the restrictions that were attempted. City will not be "innocent" as far as the regulations go, they object in principle to the regulations in the first place.

So it's a collision between the two. Absolutely fair to report that UEFA want to push it this way. One or two others such as Martin Samuel write about how iniquitous those regulations are.

Some will use it as a stick with which to beat City, plus ca change.
 
Nothing new in this was always the likely outcome if found to have broken the rules as reported months ago but nothing has been reported till now, more media City haters trying to discredit us after stuffing the scousers who they love and hoping it effects the team before the FA cup final to stop us completing a unique treble I can read this lot like a book.
Fucking hell thats one long sentence.
 
The plot thickens.

Originally posted by Bakerdave76 on the Liverpool thread.

A bit more digging by me.

From the Liverpool Echo.

*******

THE New York Times Company has been confirmed as the second largest shareholder in Liverpool Football Club.

The club’s owners Fenway Sports Group released the information as required by Premier League rules which state that any ownership of more than 10 per cent must be declared.

FSG chief John Henry revealed that he and the Times group are the two biggest shareholders in the company, which owns Liverpool and the Boston Red Sox.

It was already known that the Times were significant players in FSG with their stake believed to be 16.58%.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-york-times-confirmed-second-3377324

71-A6-C70-E-38-C1-44-E0-B11-D-16-B0-BEB7-E6-AC.png
 
The plot thickens.

Originally posted by Bakerdave76 on the Liverpool thread.

A bit more digging by me.

From the Liverpool Echo.

*******

THE New York Times Company has been confirmed as the second largest shareholder in Liverpool Football Club.

The club’s owners Fenway Sports Group released the information as required by Premier League rules which state that any ownership of more than 10 per cent must be declared.

FSG chief John Henry revealed that he and the Times group are the two biggest shareholders in the company, which owns Liverpool and the Boston Red Sox.

It was already known that the Times were significant players in FSG with their stake believed to be 16.58%.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-york-times-confirmed-second-3377324

71-A6-C70-E-38-C1-44-E0-B11-D-16-B0-BEB7-E6-AC.png
That story is eight years old ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top