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

[bobbyowenquiff]

Simon Stone hanging us out to dry.

We're guilty in the BBCs eyes

Heard him lying on Radio 5 Live this morning. He was asked a good question by the presenter: "So who actually sits on this committee that ordered the ban?" His response was: "That isn't in the public domain" Well it's on the UEFA website and he knows full well that leaks have been coming out of UEFA to our commercial rivals. Just yesterday he tweeted how he had been told the "net is closing on City" by a Premier League CEO. Well he must have been one with Psychic powers. It didn't take long for Stone's lies to unravel.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Not according to CAS's own minutes they didn't. More media bollocks.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

Manchester City Football Club Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom
Represented by Mr Paul Harris QC, Barrister, Monckton Chambers, London, United Kingdom, Mr Rhodri Thomas and Ms Natalie Sheehan, Solicitors, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, London, United Kingdom, Mr Jean-Cédric Michel and Mr Massimiliano Maestretti, Attorneys-at-Law, Kellerhals Carrard, Lugano, Switzerland

That's five, not eight.

Agree.

But further down the document (at Point 42 on Page 9) it lists 8 as attending:

For MCFC:
1) Mr Simon Cliff, General Counsel, City Football Group;
2) Mr James Cranston, Head of Litigation, City Football Group;
3) Mr Josh Blake, Trainee Solicitor, City Football Group;
4) Mr Paul Harris QC, Barrister;
5) Mr Jean-Cédric Michel, Counsel;
6) Mr Massimiliano Maestretti, Counsel;
7) Mr Rhodri Thomas, Counsel;
8) Ms Natalie Sheehan, Counsel

 

[marco]

im in good spirits over this and think wel'l be fine, we have the best lawyers money can buy, the club will be two or three steps ahead of anyone else,there are more worms in the can so its going to be popcorn time, if its anything other than this then i'd be truly disapointed with the legal side of the club that they couldnt defend against these crooks, sit back let them get the lube out over us being banned then go for the jugular which is FFP and Defamation then put them to bed, its going to be fun when the ban is overturned, a bit like taking sweets off a baby,the tantrums within the media are going to be fun to watch

 

[dadnlad]

I had already resigned myself to fucking it all off mainly because of var , but I detest bullies & it feels like my club are being bullied .If City fight back , first by banning some of these vermin press from our ground then I certainly will return to fight with them . Nicey nicey hasn’t worked , it’s war now & time to stick together & FIGHT BACK !

nice nicey might be for a reason we've now built a case file against each and everyone of them

 

[JOGAMIGMOG]

took the night to digest all this and even winning in CAS the damage is done imo and possibly thats what UEFA wanted? They knew we would get away but in the media, fans of other clubs will always label us with the cheats tag?

Doubt it. Look at Juve, Rangers and many others who have been demoted due to financial misdemeanour. They're back stronger than ever and Juve have even got Ronaldo playing for them!
City get the ban quoshed and it will all be forgotten within a couple of years especially if we buy one of the greats of the time.

 

[SidJames]

A few 'Swales out' chants and a couple of PET pint glasses thrown towards the main entrance hardly constitutes a riot.

Someone had Swales wig off during all the scuffling.

As a teenager back then i thought it was hilarious.

 

[waspish]

No. That's lifted from a muddled BBC report. Go to PL website and look up the Handbook, then tell us which para limits spending. (Btw, forget the short term wage limlits, they have been junked).

Point me in that direction of the actual premier league rule book

 

[Blue Smarties]

I've only been listening to 5Live since this came out and I would say they've been pretty good.

Simon Stone has been at pains to reiterate that City say they are innocent and didn't break the rules every minute or so, talking about how FFP is there to protect old established clubs, Chapman keeps steering the conversation towards if FFP should even exist, and they just had a football finance expert on who said that FFP didn't work as a way of ensuring a level playing field and all it does is stop new investment.

Stephen Warnock has been a bellend, being a Liverpool fan, but everyone else has been pretty measured compared to what I've seen journalists write on twitter.

I do wonder how much our legal and PR teams have been involved in reminding everyone of a few responsibilities this morning.

No surprise to hear Chapman being sound as a pound. A thoroughly decent man and a great journalist / pundit / reporter, whatever category he falls under nowadays.

 

[Parisian]

I did not think PSG got there sponsorship reduced or at least not that much I am sure that your sponsors where paying a huge amount more than cities despite being in a lesser league

UEFA must have deemed PSG sponsors related party but cities where not nor where they deemed over valued so how can they now say they they are over valued (then they have to be related party) even this alleged new evidence in these emails does not change the ownership or the amount of money in the sponsorship just where the money has come from

PSG sponsors were paying more than City PSG with QTA contract, without a doubt.

What i think happened with your sponsors is they took the emails related to this :

The sponsorship was said to generate 67.5 million pounds (about $85 million) annually for City. But City’s holding company — the state-backed Abu Dhabi United Group — channeled 59.9 million pounds back to Etihad, according to Jorge Chumillas, the club’s chief financial officer, in an internal email to club director Simon Pearce.


The leaks showed how City allegedly tried to artificially raise its revenue, in one case by 30 million euros, according to emails from 2013 reported by Der Spiegel. Abu Dhabi United Group was alleged to be sending cash to a shell vehicle which was created to supposedly buy the right to use players’ images in marketing campaigns.


There were further examples that Sheikh Mansour could have been the source of sponsorship revenue for Abu Dhabi state-owned companies like investment firm Aabar. Der Spiegel cited a 2010 email to Aabar from Pearce, the City director who also works for Abu Dhabi’s Executive Affairs Authority.


“As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3 million,” Pearce wrote. “The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness.”

and they decided that your sponsors were related parties and only took into account the part being said from the companies (3 M from Aabar, 8 M from Etihad). I can only see this explanation. But it is ridiculous because no club of City stature would take 8 M only for shirt and stadium rights.

Here, the problem is not even the value of City sponsorship but the content of the emails that UEFA are using as proof to further decrease it. PSG could defend itself by using the valuation given by Nielsen. City didn't even get the chance to defend itself since they are accused to lying.

 

[marco]

Agree.

But further down the document (at Point 42 on Page 9) it lists 8 as attending:

For MCFC:
1) Mr Simon Cliff, General Counsel, City Football Group;
2) Mr James Cranston, Head of Litigation, City Football Group;
3) Mr Josh Blake, Trainee Solicitor, City Football Group;
4) Mr Paul Harris QC, Barrister;
5) Mr Jean-Cédric Michel, Counsel;
6) Mr Massimiliano Maestretti, Counsel;
7) Mr Rhodri Thomas, Counsel;
8) Ms Natalie Sheehan, Counsel

i wonder if they will look into my council tax problems for me