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.
Reading through some of the comments on here, I think some of the older fans are missing the point about the importance of winning this whole case. If we win, then yeah, the bitter bastards are going to give it the old "you must have paid them off" shit...but I want that! That's their desperation! On the other hand, and more imprtantly, if we lose, our kids wont want to wear the City top anymore. The media and rival will be campaigning for us to be stripped of titles. We'll get sick of walking into bars wearing our colours and having snidey "cheats" remarks shouted our way.
The media have already caused us damage. City would have expanded the stadium by now...we should be getting over 60,000. I believe all the negative shite that's written about us IS to stop our growth and it's working. Losing this case will be a 1000x worse!
 
nmc said:
Most City fans would hedge their bets until about 09:30pm on the prospect of it getting dark tonight!
Click to expand...
Conditioned by year and years of typical city. Those days are gone. Sunny uplands await.
 
BLUEMATT23 said:
Enough about miserable old me, what's your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I haven’t got much insight pal really. Some of the posts on this thread are too convoluted or too long for me to read, and show a level of apparent insight about this case I just don’t have. As most on here probably do, I dip in now and again, and read with interest posts by the likes of PB and TH and take a steer from them.
That, and the fact I want us to be cleared, means I voted that way on the poll, and that’s the line I’m taking. It’s also a lot less miserable and feels like a better mindset to have been positive about the outcome all these weeks/months leading up to it!
 
UEFA will resumably have the evidence they gathered in support of the original case back in 2014. We know that showed they thought the minor Abu Dhabi sponsorships were overvalued. We know they thought Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar were all related parties. Possibly this is what they're referring to.
 
Johnny Yen said:
Reading through some of the comments on here, I think some of the older fans are missing the point about the importance of winning this whole case. If we win, then yeah, the bitter bastards are going to give it the old "you must have paid them off" shit...but I want that! That's their desperation! On the other hand, and more imprtantly, if we lose, our kids wont want to wear the City top anymore. The media and rival will be campaigning for us to be stripped of titles. We'll get sick of walking into bars wearing our colours and having snidey "cheats" remarks shouted our way.
The media have already caused us damage. City would have expanded the stadium by now...we should be getting over 60,000. I believe all the negative shite that's written about us IS to stop our growth and it's working. Losing this case will be a 1000x worse!
Click to expand...
The past shows that whenever City fans are in a difficult situation, support for the club grows, not wanes.

City fans maybe tested again. I'm ready. I think and hope Sheikh Mansour is ready too, but most of all I have faith in my fellow City fans. They've never ever let the club down. You should have more faith mate in your fellow City fans.

We might all have our squabbles over politics, corona and all kind of things, but City fans are awkwards sods and aren't going anywhere.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
UEFA will resumably have the evidence they gathered in support of the original case back in 2014. We know that showed they thought the minor Abu Dhabi sponsorships were overvalued. We know they thought Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar were all related parties. Possibly this is what they're referring to.
Click to expand...

maybe there's something in the original settlement that they now want to pick at now they've got Infantino and Platini out of the way.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
UEFA will resumably have the evidence they gathered in support of the original case back in 2014. We know that showed they thought the minor Abu Dhabi sponsorships were overvalued. We know they thought Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar were all related parties. Possibly this is what they're referring to.
Click to expand...
I thought they'd agreed that Etihad were not related but that Etisalat and Aabar were (and we acknowledged such)? Perhaps I'm getting different things mixed up.
 
Centurions said:
I thought they'd agreed that Etihad were not related but that Etisalat and Aabar were (and we acknowledged such)? Perhaps I'm getting different things mixed up.
Click to expand...
They tried to claim that all were related, which meant they could apply the 'fair value' test to those sponsorships. In the end, that never got tested properly but they seemed to accept that the Etihad deal was pretty fair. So nothing was ever agreed on the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. We failed FFP and it really wasn't material whether they were or not.
 
BJL_City said:
maybe there's something in the original settlement that they now want to pick at now they've got Infantino and Platini out of the way.
Click to expand...

Could work both ways that, as we also had issues with them changing the toolkit at the last minute which was the difference between us possibly passing and definitely failing but we “took the pinch” so to speak
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
They tried to claim that all were related, which meant they could apply the 'fair value' test to those sponsorships. In the end, that never got tested properly but they seemed to accept that the Etihad deal was pretty fair. So nothing was ever agreed on the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. We failed FFP and it really wasn't material whether they were or not.
Click to expand...

Would this mean that they are still claiming that Etihad are a related party and that City have increased the value of the sponsorship but that the Sheikh (Mansour) has paid the difference? If they have been through our accounts they would surely have noticed this sooner and not let us exit the settlement regime? And does this really constitute a "serious" breach of FFP, especially in the light of the doubling of the Jeep deal with Juventus?
 
projectriver said:
I think City are probably really feeling about 60%-65% confident of winning at CAS. No such process is guaranteed and even the best cases can lose. I'd say few cases have better than 70% certainty. The club are obviously not super confident because you can see how little we are doing in the transfer market - Chilwell is a perfect example. I think we will be very cautious until we have more certainty on the situation.

But likewise, I believe they are confident in the strength of their defence - the public statements are very bold and it seems inconceivable that Silverlake didn't get sight of a very strong legal opinion in advance of its investment. In fact its probable that CFG had to agree to a clause in the investment agreement that CFG had complied with laws, regulations etc. On the flipside, this probably also means that it is exposed to a sizeable claim (known as a warranty claim) from Silverlake in the event it is found to have breached by CAS.
Click to expand...
Although our lack of transfer activity may more be a reflection of other parties’ lack of confidence in the outcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top