Goes one of two ways for me. Either we get our noses in the trough, clear out a few of our more troublesome if not most influential foes and move on from there, or the status quo claim and drive the media agenda that UEFA aren't fit for purpose as they couldn't punish City properly, and draw up their Agnelli League with new financial regulations and invitations to participate.
Ceferin's links with Agnelli are the thing that make me most uncertain on how this could play out afterwards, it's hard to see anything in our favour given those ties.
That answers my previous question. Thanks.The impression I have got from reports is that they haven't seen it, as they deemed it too late. Hence their opinion that WE are the ones not co-operating with the process.
I think Khaldoon would relish his moment on the court steps.If UEFA win you can be certain that all details will be leaked to the media within hours. If we win I sincerely hope we do not agree to keep the information under wraps. I think us fans deserve to see everything whatever the outcome. We are the paying customers.
We have had our own very strong ties with the Agnelli family.
Abu Dhabi have/had a 9% holding in Ferrari and Fiat.
Ferrari World is still very much a big thing in Abu Dhabi.
More importantly, Khaldoon, through Mubadala, knows the Agnelli family very well.
Mubadala had their moniker on the fishtail for enough years.
I don't think we need to worry on that particular score.
No I don't think so. I think that only means that if the deadline expires on official holidays or weekends, or between 20/12 and 5/1. So if the deadline was due to expire on 24/12, it doesn't actually expire until 6/1, not that they stop counting full stop, even if the deadline expires on a working Wednesday in March.
But you've saved me looking that up.
1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier.
But what "decision" are they referring to? The sanctions document was published on 16th May iirc. But we had been talking to UEFA for some time before that. Presumably then, we'd been notified that we were in breach weeks or even months beforehand and we were arguing about the punishment rather than the FFP failure itself. Technically, you could argue we were in breach once UEFA issued its revised toolkit, or once we submitted our 2013 accounts, or once we submitted whatever documents we needed to submit for licensing purposes to the licensor and thence to UEFA. Someone, at some point prior to May 16th, nust have formally notified us to say "Hello. Is that Manchester City? This is UEFA and you're officially in breach of FFP."
I'd be arguing that's the date that starts the 5-year clock ticking.
Assume then Colin you’ve heard Stefan’s case that the clock started ticking from the date of the alleged breach. How does that leave UEFA? Or do you think there’s a different interpretation?
Yes. If it looks like an interesting and potentially winnable case, that is enough to attract Pannick.
Remember, even the best lose half their cases.
We don't end up in this position because we don't need to worry about particular scores. Whilst the assumption of equivalence across investments is all too nice, we've been burned too many times to accept that City receiving Abu Dhabi investment will be treated the same way.
I just don't subscribe to a possible theory that Agnelli is the puppet master in all of this.
And, if he is, then Abu Dhabi's business dealings with the family will ensure at the very least, who they need to have our eyes trained on.
For me, this is about clubs in England with most to lose, coupled with a Bavarian sense of entitlement.
Khaldoon pretty much said as much when he warned clubs in England to be careful which side they take.
Good shout, I watched it a few years ago and it had shades of how badly City used to be run. We've seen some volatile Italians in the PL eg Paulo de Canio or Antonio Conte but watching Flavio Briatore as the chairman of QPR during Four Year Plan is another level. A chairman needs to be professional and make clear headed decisions but he gets even more worked up than I have at times watching City.You can only work with the material you're given, you only have to watch Four Year Plan for an indication of the shambles QPR have been for the past decade.
I think the fact that we accepted a settlement prevented any further actionNo legal knowledge with me but I seem to recall that no action taken against Liverpool in connection with their hacking of City because it was outside the 5 year ruling. I know its the FA but if it was anything other than when the offences took place and they did not have knowledge of it they would not mention 5 years or do I misunderstand the significance?
No I don't think so. I think that only means that if the deadline expires on official holidays or weekends, or between 20/12 and 5/1. So if the deadline was due to expire on 24/12, it doesn't actually expire until 6/1, not that they stop counting full stop, even if the deadline expires on a working Wednesday in March.
But you've saved me looking that up.
1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier.
But what "decision" are they referring to? The sanctions document was published on 16th May iirc. But we had been talking to UEFA for some time before that. Presumably then, we'd been notified that we were in breach weeks or even months beforehand and we were arguing about the punishment rather than the FFP failure itself. Technically, you could argue we were in breach once UEFA issued its revised toolkit, or once we submitted our 2013 accounts, or once we submitted whatever documents we needed to submit for licensing purposes to the licensor and thence to UEFA. Someone, at some point prior to May 16th, nust have formally notified us to say "Hello. Is that Manchester City? This is UEFA and you're officially in breach of FFP."
I'd be arguing that's the date that starts the 5-year clock ticking.
You may be right but I'm sure the 5 year rule was mentioned as a reason.I think the fact that we accepted a settlement prevented any further action
No legal knowledge with me but I seem to recall that no action taken against Liverpool in connection with their hacking of City because it was outside the 5 year ruling. I know its the FA but if it was anything other than when the offences took place and they did not have knowledge of it they would not mention 5 years or do I misunderstand the significance?
Harvey Specter would be betterBetter call Saul!