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.
KS55 said:
Liverpool's hacking gave rise to three types of misdemeanors.
1. Civil Tort. We settled that by accepting a payment.
2. Criminal action under the Misuse of Computers act. Not clear why no action taken here. There is no Statutory Limitation for crimes.
3. Administrative action by PL, FA. FA declined to act as the offences were too long ago. Not a rule, just their view. PL decined to look! (Have I got FA and PL right way round?)
Click to expand...

In relation to part 2 and part 3 would the only evidence realistically be the information City have who decided to accept a payment to not comment any further on the allegations?
 
King KdB of Belgium said:
Unless we get a complete exoneration from CAS. We will always be tarred as getting away with it. This will be due to UEFA not following their own procedures. Just imagine how the press will tar us.
Click to expand...
If UEFA concede defeat on day 1 of the hearing, pay us 50m compensation and do a statement to the press saying they made a mistake and would like to apologise, people will still say we got away with it
 
The one thing both Uefa and the Premier League will have to factor in if our ban is upheld, is the potential for future recompense and loss of earnings.

We are certain qualifiers in terms of current league standings, that's before we win it in August ;)

City would move on to the Swiss Courts and there is little doubt that continued litigation comes with added cost to both ourselves and Uefa.

Fag packet calculations for missing out on just next season would be £70m in TV monies, before matchday income and then other commercial stuff is factored.

Add on the £25m fine, and Uefa and the Premier League must need to be extremely mindful of what City would be owed on the back end if we were ultimately found exonerated at a higher court.

Our owners can stand the loss in the interim, but Uefa and United (should they steal the place) would be on the hook for the best part of £100m.
 
franksinatra said:
In relation to part 2 and part 3 would the only evidence realistically be the evidence City have who decided to accept a payment to not comment any further on the allegations?
Click to expand...
For part 3, we compiled a report at their request, so they have evidence but declined to use it.
For part 2, authorities showed zero interest as no complaint was made to police or information commissioner.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
If the Premier League finishes this season then the rule doesn't apply. As far as I can see it is a one-off for this season only:

UEFA reserves the right to refuse or evaluate the admission to any club proposed by a National Association from a prematurely terminated domestic competition in particular where:

• the domestic competitions have not been prematurely terminated based on the reasons given in these UEFA guidelines or on the basis of any other legitimate public health reasons;

• the clubs were selected pursuant to a procedure which was not objective, transparent and non-discriminatory so that the selected clubs could not be considered as having been qualified on sporting merit;

• there is a public perception of unfairness in the qualification of the club.
Click to expand...

Quite agree. It was to cover dodginess within an FA.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
The one thing both Uefa and the Premier League will have to factor in if our ban is upheld, is the potential for future recompense and loss of earnings.

We are certain qualifiers in terms of current league standings, that's before we win it in August ;)

City would move on to the Swiss Courts and there is little doubt that continued litigation comes with added cost to both ourselves and Uefa.

Fag packet calculations for missing out on just next season would be £70m in TV monies, before matchday income and then other commercial stuff is factored.

Add on the £25m fine, and Uefa and the Premier League must need to be extremely mindful of what City would be owed on the back end if we were ultimately found exonerated at a higher court.

Our owners can stand the loss in the interim, but Uefa and United (should they steal the place) would be on the hook for the best part of £100m.
Click to expand...

Would Utd be liable though, they would ( as much as I hate to say it) have acted in good faith. UEFA would be looking at the total bill?
 
KS55 said:
Liverpool's hacking gave rise to three types of misdemeanors.
1. Civil Tort. We settled that by accepting a payment.
2. Criminal action under the Misuse of Computers act. Not clear why no action taken here. There is no Statutory Limitation for crimes.
3. Administrative action by PL, FA. FA declined to act as the offences were too long ago. Not a rule, just their view. PL decined to look! (Have I got FA and PL right way round?)
Click to expand...

Wasn't the PL because it was a while ago (I may have misquoted that earlier)?
The FA said that no-one would give them any info, so City partly blocked that.

As City accepted a payoff, presumably they'd be reticent about offering any support to any criminal enquiry.
 
KS55 said:
For part 3, we compiled a report at their request, so they have evidence but declined to use it.
For part 2, authorities showed zero interest as no complaint was made to police or information commissioner.
Click to expand...

Part 2. Besides the parties involved most people would prefer tax payers money was not wasted on investigating an offence 5 years ago to solve a spat between two corporate giants, so no issue with that.

Part 3. We messed up royally there. I have no idea why City accepted the payment and now the ‘aggrieved party’ is complicit with initially withholding information from the Premier League. It was as poor a decision as not preventing the IT breach in the first place.
 
bluemanchester said:
A similar question was asked the other day and I found the answer funny. It was along the lines, not as quick as UEFA who delivered the verdict before the hearing.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of a joke I heard the other day. Some kids dream of growing up and becoming President. Trump is the only recorded instance of someone becoming a President before growing up.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Wasn't the PL because it was a while ago (I may have misquoted that earlier)?
The FA said that no-one would give them any info, so City partly blocked that.

As City accepted a payoff, presumably they'd be reticent about offering any support to any criminal enquiry.
Click to expand...
I like to think that by taking Scousers to court re the hacking we would risk revealing all we know and how we know it.
So this battle was best avoided.
 
franksinatra said:
Part 2. Besides the parties involved most people would prefer tax payers money was not wasted on investigating an offence 5 years ago to solve a spat between two corporate giants, so no issue with that.

Part 3. We messed up royally there. I have no idea why City accepted the payment and now the ‘aggrieved party’ is complicit with initially withholding information from the Premier League. It was as poor a decision as not preventing the IT breach in the first place.
Click to expand...

It doesnt add up for me, either they have something on us or we have done a deal on something or someone??

If that's the other way round I see Liverpool sending us to the dogs.

Is it me or have we just rolled over & let Liverpool tickle our belly??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top