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

[Prestwich_Blue]

Colin, I recently re visited the leaked/hacked emails on Der Spiegels website and the email laid out in copy defo says ADUG provided the additional funds. Do you suppose that's a mistake by Pearce, or an instance indicating those emails are fabricated either in part or otherwise?

It's difficult to be sure without context.

I think I've seen that email and on the surface it's damning. But maybe the Executive Council sent the money to ADUG in one remittance, who then had to parcel it out to the partners so that it could be seen to be coming from them. That would fit in with that email between Soriano & Pearce, which said we had to show everything separately. That's a different reading to "ADUG will give Etihad the money".

 

[iwasthere1968]

I believe the first objective for City is to have the allegations thrown out and any threat of sanctions removed.

Talk of then attacking FFP and UEFA may be misplaced. Khaldoon has said that City know who is behind the moves to undermine and discredit the Club. Attention could focus on individuals (in the way Platini was forced out) and organisations behind besmirching City. They could be pursued and claims made for damages. It is an alternative view that does not attack UEFA as such but those behind the sustained campaign aganst Manchester City, CFG and our owners.

I agree a straight attack on ffp may not be the best route. If we succeed in overturning the ban the threat of further action might be enough to illicit sufficient changes on the whole set up. Bearing mind a totally defunct Uefa leaves the door open to the G14 doing what they want.

 

[journolud]

There’s a fairly small thread on this already mate...

Nothing conclusive on it though. I reckon this breakaway thread could nail it. Now, what was the question again?

 

[hello]

It wasn't considered because they didn't have time. They had to pass the case to the AC by 15th May, to avoud it being timed-out, as it would have been over 5 years ago and therefore outside their own limitation on reopening a case. They'd only opened the case a couple of months before.

But there's a doubt as to whether that date was even the valid one, as it totally depends on when the breach actually occurred. If CAS decides it was before 16th May 2014 then they'll have been out of time and i assume the case will be dropped.

The time aspect is crazy in that the May 2014 bar was met to push to the AC, and then subsequently UEFA refer to 2012 - 2016 as its justication. Surely 2012 - May 2014 Is beyond refute as time barred. Then given the fact that 2014 2015 2016 was a period of enhanced auditing by UEFA as part of the settlement agreement in 2014 cumulating in a full release from sanctions and enhanced montioring for complaince in April 2017 I just can't get my head round UEFA's decision to say city were guilty of several breaches between 2012-2016 and just conventiently ignore their own rules.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

He's misunderstood what @Prestwich_Blue has posted?

He's understood it perfectly from what I can see. He picked up my tweet and followed the link to the same document.

Actually one thing he's got slightly wrong is that he's said we've claimed Etihad sponsorship wasn't subsidised. I don't think we've ever said that per se just that Etihad pay us from their own funds. You could argue that they did but we knew those funds weren't absolutely Etihad's & derived from the EC. Khaldoon is unlikely to have been unaware of that.

 

[Joga]

Haven’t spoke much on the forum, certainly not in a while but agree with all the sentiments.

Why the faux outrage? Why have Chelsea never received such visceral hatred, this despite their owner pumping millions in to the club, owing at least £1bn to him?

Do folk forget how poor the EPL would be if not for City and Chelsea? It would have been a procession for Man United over the last 20 years if not for these clubs.

Given the latter reason, I can’t see the league really caring all that much, nor do I think they would strip us. They know the EPL relies on money and competition for the lucrative television rights and what makes the EPL unique and sellable.

 

[kaz7]

So he’s fed the line and still manages to misunderstanding it. So the EC cannot fund its own airline because it might upset UEFA. So long as it’s not our owner then Etihad can source funds from wherever it wants. Numerous sponsors of Football clubs get monies from the state - VW get state and local government cash, Chevrolet got state money... Conn hates us so much he’s lost sight of reality.

Real Madrid do as well

 

[SebastianBlue]

I believe the first objective for City is to have the allegations thrown out and any threat of sanctions removed.

Talk of then attacking FFP and UEFA may be misplaced. Khaldoon has said that City know who is behind the moves to undermine and discredit the Club. Attention could focus on individuals (in the way Platini was forced out) and organisations behind besmirching City. They could be pursued and claims made for damages. It is an alternative view that does not attack UEFA as such but those behind the sustained campaign aganst Manchester City, CFG and our owners.

Oh, I completely agree we will do that...

...as well. ;-)

 

[fallowfield]

He's understood it perfectly from what I can see. He picked up my tweet and followed the link to the same document.

But he makes no link in the article to say "and if Abu Dhabi govt has paid the sponsorship this is allowed"

 

[journolud]

That’s a. Great post sounds complicated the

Sorry I wanted to say and reply to your message but I messed it up

well at least you’ve made it clear now