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

[slbsn]

I disagree. Non-co-operation is, as you say, a serious allegation in its own right and, if the main allegation were to fail, UEFA could argue that it reached its decision because they weren't in possession of the full facts due to City's non-co-operation. Therefore the ban should be upheld. Two separate matters independent of each other either of which merit a ban thus providing two bites of the cherry.

I never said that. I don't believe non-cooperation in the sense UEFA mean it (because it is known City DID engage) is a serious allegation. Its a subjective, shades of grey allegation of no consequence. And as I said, I don't believe City will suddenly spring the silver bullet evidence at this late stage. UEFA will have had whatever City say is the key defence evidence all along. They simply didn't accept it as a silver bullet. I completely disagree (only my opinion) that co-operation is something that could lead to a ban.

 

[blueyorkie]

Surely its extremely unlikely that CAS finds UEFA wrong on breach but right on a cooperation charge thats serious enough justify a ban. Pretty impossible I think. Any finding on cooperation where the main case is overturned can only be a sideshow. And if the main appeal is not upheld, I suspect they will find against us on cooperation as well.

Surely given the continuous leaks City had every right to withhold documentation, pending the leaks being stopped ?

 

[Newman Noggs]

I never said that. I don't believe non-cooperation in the sense UEFA mean it (because it is known City DID engage) is a serious allegation. Its a subjective, shades of grey allegation of no consequence. And as I said, I don't believe City will suddenly spring the silver bullet evidence at this late stage. UEFA will have had whatever City say is the key defence evidence all along. They simply didn't accept it as a silver bullet. I completely disagree (only my opinion) that co-operation is something that could lead to a ban.

If you are right, it would seem odd for UEFA to make an allegation "of no consequence" and, as far as non-co-operation is concerned, it could be regarded as similar to not turning up for a drugs test. It denies the investigating authority the opportunity to make an assessment based on the full facts and justifies the making of a decision on partial facts.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

If we get a slap on the wrist for non cooperation or some slapdash paper work, but win on the substantive issue, that's ok. Let uefa have their little triumph.

UEFA should have no little triumph. They have accused us of serious breaches of FFP. Basically accused us of falsifying our accounts.
If this is proven wrong then we should be able to carry on as before and accept no punishment whatsoever.

 

[mcfc1632]

It's equally feasible that no decision has actually been made yet, hence the lack of leaks.

Ok - I agree that a decision has probably not been made yet - but- surely both parties would have had a very good 'feeling' of how things had gone

I am just shocked that there have been no leaks - or even false/true rumours

Just utter silence seems very strange

So I just 'want' to see it as good news

 

[Zabbasbeard]

We are just waiting now. I'd normally say it was agony but I am very relaxed. I am confident we will win the appeal.
1. Khaldoon and Soriano have been strong in their assertions that we have not breached. They have given their absolute word to Pep and his staff, to the players, to everybody that works for City and, most importantly, to the fans. They are honourable men who would not lie in this way. True, they are businessmen and businesses sometimes sail close to the wind. Unless these guys have made a big mistake that Uefa has uncovered, we will prevail.
2. Fine work by Stefan and Colin has made it easy for us to see the case clearly and Uefa's looks thin.
3. Er...we are the new City and the old typical City is dead.

Absolutely - a big thank you to those gentlemen.

 

[Ric]

Ok - I agree that a decision has probably not been made yet - but- surely both parties would have had a very good 'feeling' of how things had gone

I am just shocked that there have been no leaks - or even false/true rumours

Just utter silence seems very strange

So I just 'want' to see it as good news

Not long to wait now I guess. Probably looking at three weeks tops. Maybe rumours will start to emerge in the coming days/weeks before the verdict is given. Just don’t think anything should be read into the fact that there’s been no leaks so far. There’s only been seven working days since the hearing ended.

 

[slbsn]

If you are right, it would seem odd for UEFA to make an allegation "of no consequence" and, as far as non-co-operation is concerned, it could be regarded as similar to not turning up for a drugs test. It denies the investigating authority the opportunity to make an assessment based on the full facts and justifies the making of a decision on partial facts.

My view it is of no consequence is an opinion of how it will be viewed by CAS. For UEFA, it was a nice gloss to a serious sanction. It's not the same as a "no show" for a drugs test. It's like giving a drugs test in 2014 and taking a sanction, the drug tester having another look at the original drugs test in 2018 and asking for some explanation but, in the drug testers eyes, you not providing enough explanation and then being found to have failed the drugs test again. Obviously if you don't give a drugs test, the presumption must be you fail. This is just is not the same. In any event one is binary - you either give the test or not. Co-operation, on the other hand, is highly subjective and we know from City provided at least 100 documents so clearly did not stonewall. One persons co-operation, is another person's being obstructive.

To be clear, my opinion is purely how it will be seen by CAS - co-operation will be irrelevant if we win (because CAS will find, in essence, UEFA were wrong to pursue) and irrelevant if we lose (because the matters are already so serious).

 

[M18CTID]

Isn’t it possible that non-co-operation could actually refer to us not accepting the rumoured lesser punishment? Remember that when clubs are deemed to have breached the regs, they can enter into a settlement agreement with UEFA (as we did in 2014). It could be that the stories of us rejecting the rumoured deal offered by Ceferin have led to UEFA going in on us hard with the 2 year ban, and chucking in an accusation of non-co-operation to make us look like even bigger twats in the eyes of the footballing world.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

It's a question which still bugs me.

Why did City go directly to CAS in an attempt to circumnavigate the process by Uefa?

City must surely have known it was a Hail Mary at best, knowing CAS couldn't do anything at that stage?

Throughout this whole process, it doesn't sit right, counsel would have known this.

Some have suggested it was simply a shot across UEFA's bow, but I think it was much more nuanced than that?

We needed to plant a seed to permeate CAS, there has to be more than City just trying to head Uefa off at the pass, knowing CAS couldn't get involved at that stage in the proceedings?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

It's a question which I still bugs me.

Why did City go directly to CAS in an attempt to circumnavigate the process by Uefa?

City must surely have known it was a Hail Mary at best, knowing CAS couldn't do anything at that stage?

Throughout this whole process, it doesn't sit right, counsel would have known this.

Some have suggested it was simply a shot across UEFA's bow, but I think it was much more nuanced than that?

We needed to plant a seed to permeate CAS, there has to be more than City just trying to head Uefa off at the pass, knowing CAS couldn't get involved at that stage in the proceedings?

Partly setting the scene and narrative with CAS, and getting conclusions from CAS that have clearly resonated with the puppet string pullers at UEFA as they've shut up a lot more.

 

[slbsn]

Isn’t it possible that non-co-operation could actually refer to us not accepting the rumoured lesser punishment? Remember that when clubs are deemed to have breached the regs, they can enter into a settlement agreement with UEFA (as we did in 2014). It could be that the stories of us rejecting the rumoured deal offered by Ceferin have led to UEFA going in on us hard with the 2 year ban, and chucking in an accusation of non-co-operation to make us look like even bigger twats in the eyes of the footballing world.

No - that wouldn't be non-cooperation.

 

[slbsn]

It's a question which still bugs me.

Why did City go directly to CAS in an attempt to circumnavigate the process by Uefa?

City must surely have known it was a Hail Mary at best, knowing CAS couldn't do anything at that stage?

Throughout this whole process, it doesn't sit right, counsel would have known this.

Some have suggested it was simply a shot across UEFA's bow, but I think it was much more nuanced than that?

We needed to plant a seed to permeate CAS, there has to be more than City just trying to head Uefa off at the pass, knowing CAS couldn't get involved at that stage in the proceedings?

I suspect they thought they could win (like with many things its arguable - even if not one likely to succeed) and that it would send a message to UEFA. Nothing more. Wouldn't read too much into it.

 

[M18CTID]

No - that wouldn't be non-cooperation.

Apologies - what’s an extra hyphen between friends? ;)

 

[Shaelumstash]

It's a question which still bugs me.

Why did City go directly to CAS in an attempt to circumnavigate the process by Uefa?

City must surely have known it was a Hail Mary at best, knowing CAS couldn't do anything at that stage?

Throughout this whole process, it doesn't sit right, counsel would have known this.

Some have suggested it was simply a shot across UEFA's bow, but I think it was much more nuanced than that?

We needed to plant a seed to permeate CAS, there has to be more than City just trying to head Uefa off at the pass, knowing CAS couldn't get involved at that stage in the proceedings?

Or it was a way of City trying to stop the investigation being played out in the press... by taking legal action they knew would fail but would be reported in the press..

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It's a question which still bugs me.

Why did City go directly to CAS in an attempt to circumnavigate the process by Uefa?

City must surely have known it was a Hail Mary at best, knowing CAS couldn't do anything at that stage?

Throughout this whole process, it doesn't sit right, counsel would have known this.

Some have suggested it was simply a shot across UEFA's bow, but I think it was much more nuanced than that?

We needed to plant a seed to permeate CAS, there has to be more than City just trying to head Uefa off at the pass, knowing CAS couldn't get involved at that stage in the proceedings?

Im guessing part protest at the press leaks and part signalling that we wouldn't be taking another 'pinch' and paying UEFA a bung/ransom again.

 

[blue oli]

It's a question which still bugs me.

Why did City go directly to CAS in an attempt to circumnavigate the process by Uefa?

City must surely have known it was a Hail Mary at best, knowing CAS couldn't do anything at that stage?

Throughout this whole process, it doesn't sit right, counsel would have known this.

Some have suggested it was simply a shot across UEFA's bow, but I think it was much more nuanced than that?

We needed to plant a seed to permeate CAS, there has to be more than City just trying to head Uefa off at the pass, knowing CAS couldn't get involved at that stage in the proceedings?

I read it as a way to get a comment out in the press about the leaks without showing double standards and talking about the subject to the press ourselves. Also to pressure UEFA into stopping g the leaks too probably, I think they knew nothing would happen but comment had to be made.

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2h3874Ro_fTYF8cp2P0CLn

Page 19 / 20

Uefa argued with ac Milan about when they should appeal and argued that the appeal should have been made when the referral was issued. Hence City had to appeal to CAS at that stage just to make sure Uefa didn't try to get it kicked out at a later stage by claiming we didn't appeal at the correct time

In fact Uefa tried to argue that we shouldn't have appealed at this stage in direct opposition to their own arguement vs ac Milan and cas agreed we had to appeal because the Uefa guidance was unclear

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

Then item 105, Uefa by not following the same guidance consistently has created this situation where city need to appeal in good faith because we didn't know which arguement Uefa would present re when the right time to appeal was

 

[oldius]

I think the appeal to CAS was a public statement of intent.