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
Not open for further replies.

Krieng_Thai OSC

Well-Known Member
29 Feb 2008
Abu Dhabi
Yes. They can uphold the decision fully, reject it fully or uphold it in part but send it back to UEFA with a recommendation about the sanction or some other aspect.
Yes, In Milan case. The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:
3. The decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body
rendered on 19 June 2018 establishing that AC Milan failed to fulfil the Break-Even
requirement is confirmed.
4. The decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body
rendered on 19 June 2018 to exclude AC Milan from participating in the next UEFA
Club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e.
the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons) is annulled


Well-Known Member
4 Jan 2009
My boss’ masked slipped at work today. Talking about dodgy deals by arabs and they cant be trusted. No evidence or substance to the argument. Doesn’t seem the type, but thats what a media pushing “dirty arabs” agenda does.
Turns all half-baked football fans into city haters for the audacity of having a guy from UAE as an owner
Report him to HR and as he's being escorted out just whisper in his ear 'MCFC, OK?'


Well-Known Member
28 Feb 2007
Taking it one game at a time
Yes, there's an odd contradiction at the heart of the matter. UEFA sources seem to be briefing their friendly journalists (Panja and the like) that they're confident of CAS upholding their position. Yet MCFC continue to maintain that the club has "irrefutable evidence" to back up its claims that there are no grounds for punishment. Logic dictates that one of these propositions must be wrong.

Now, I can't stress strongly enough that what follows in this post is absolute speculation. It's just my best guess at the kind of scenario which might give rise to the oddity described in the preceding paragraph.

If there's an element of subjectivity, then in the absence of further information I can only think that it must be around the definition of a "related party". Of course I could be completely wrong here and this is purely speculation on my part, but maybe City are continuing to maintain that the Abu Dhabi sponsors aren't related parties, while UEFA are claiming that they entered into a settlement agreement in which that proposition wasn't challenged in the absence of the newly information about Abu Dhabi state funding of our sponsorships that would have altered their view on that topic. It may (or may not) be that the settlement agreement contains provisions that allow UEFA to reopen matters if they consider themselves not to have been provided with all relevant information at the time, and they regard the information about AD state subsidy of the sponsorships as meeting that criterion.

Interestingly, Panja and his boss at the NYT were tweeting yesterday about the possibility of some kind of settlement, while Tony Evans tweeted an article he'd written (which I confess to not having read) that seemed to purport to urge the parties to get together and sort things out. These journalists have in the past relayed material ostensibly sourced by people who are connected with the case and certainly aren't in the MCFC camp. I wonder whether this might point towards UEFA hoping for a settlement before matters reach CAS.

In this hypothetical event, I'd actually be tempted as long as they'd agree to a suspended ban and reduced fine, together with a statement that any breaches were technical and entailed no intention to deceive UEFA. Even if our case is relatively strong, litigation and arbitration can always be a lottery to some extent and it's invariably better to avoid it if you can.

The prospect of the club's majority shareholder and our Abu Dhabi stakeholders accepting a settlement on the terms that I would is, in my uninformed view, negligible. Remember that UEFA have found us guilty of inflating sponsorships and, if that's true, it means the club's audited accounts are inaccurate. That's a big accusation to throw at a business, because it brings into question the honesty and good faith of those running it as well as of the auditors. For that reason, in my opinion only total exoneration is likely to be seen as acceptable in the UAE.
Interesting speculation and another plausible, in the circumstances, explanation.

Given Ferran's interview, I'm damn sure your final conclusion is correct.


Well-Known Member
11 Oct 2015
Can’t help feeling there are racist undertones to all this, it’s because the Sheik is Arab, and it needs to be said at some stage. In any other walk of life accusers would have been called out by now, but somehow this is being skirted around by media. The club really can’t do anything more now, the fans have to be behind the club and players 100% and not let it be embarrassed further. City fans have a great sense of humour, keep it funny ....... tennis balls and whistles did seem brilliant though, half-time.


Well-Known Member
26 Jul 2010
breaking into heaven.....
Impressive interview from the CEO, just a shame it's taken him so long to so long to speak publicly to the fans on any issue.

His and the club attitude from day one prove to me 100% that CAS will throw this insulting and devious ban into history and with it the futures of the people who forced it in the first place.
I think they've had to fine tooth comb what they could say, unlike UEFA who obviously said the first thing that popped into their heads.
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account?

Register now!
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.