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

[tolmie's hairdoo]

And as this email is in ASCII text and NOT a facsimile copy this wouldn’t even be allowed in court as the chances of it being altered are extremely high.

Should not even be allowed as evidence and I suspect the club evidence that UEFA ignored included a copy of the original email which showed the correct funding sources.

Wasn't aware of the text issue, interesting.

City, however, clearly didn't raise this as an issue or get out of jail free card, as we don't dispute the email content, just the context?

 

[Marvin]

No just asking to see if you had a season ticket seen as though you seemed to be critical of me giving up my season ticket in your original post.

Also, I suppose it's relevant to your views on VAR because if you never go to a game, chances are that VAR's going to be much less of a problem for you than it would be for someone who goes week-in, week-out.

Most of us are City fans because we want City to prevail not because we like to be entertained on a Saturday afternoon. VAR wont last. Not in its current guise. It will be heavily revised or scrapped

I don't think Conn has done anything more than lift Colin's find and then present it as his own work, with zero commitment to acting upon the discrepancies of the Open Skies document and this hacked email.

We have never denied the emails, only that they were taken out of context.

I think what is more worrying is that ADUG are mentioned by name, no ambiguity, unless it has been doctored.

Which email concerns HH?

Which still leaves us posing the question what City have or have not yet presented which is irrefutable?

It can only be the paper trail showing the money going from ADEC to Etihad?

Can ADEC give it to ADUG directly?

It's highly unlikely that a Sheikh would step in to underwrite the financial obligations of a state owned airline. He, or his investment vehicle, may well be the conduit for the money from the UAE state. A doument like that if genuine might raise questions but does not prove anything in of itself. Might be awkward if there were question marks about related parties.

 

[blueparrot]

I don't think Conn has done anything more than lift Colin's find and then present it as his own work, with zero commitment to acting upon the discrepancies of the Open Skies document and this hacked email.

We have never denied the emails, only that they were taken out of context.

I think what is more worrying is that ADUG are mentioned by name, no ambiguity, unless it has been doctored.

Which email concerns HH?

Which still leaves us posing the question what City have or have not yet presented which is irrefutable?

It can only be the paper trail showing the money going from ADEC to Etihad?

Can ADEC give it to ADUG directly?

From what I understand Colin saying , yes they could give it directly to ADUG as could Etihad, but City themselves advised that the 2 amounts be shown separately on the books to keep it above board. I will caveat that by saying thats my understanding of ehat @Prestwich_Blue posted it could be my misunderstanding.

 

[luckyDip23]

The der Spiegel stories did have images attatched of the emails.




If I had the energy, I would ask Christoph Winterbach or David Conn what they thought about how the email explicitly says ADUG, but David Conn has confirmed for a fact that ADUG didn't pay.

It would just be nice to see them explain the conflict. FairSkies proves Executive Committee paid, email says ADUG...the only conclusion is that the email is wrong and not a record of what happened.

But will they ever admit that?

This should be the easiest thing in the world to disprove - turn up with a bank statement showing that Etihad paid the full amount.
Doesnt matter whats in an email if we can show they actually paid the money.

I'd like to hope this is waht City's "irrefutable proof" that the claims are false actually is.

Case closed - lets get back to beating madrid.

 

[domalino]

And as this email is in ASCII text and NOT a facsimile copy this wouldn’t even be allowed in court as the chances of it being altered are extremely high.

Should not even be allowed as evidence and I suspect the club evidence that UEFA ignored included a copy of the original email which showed the correct funding sources.

Wasn't aware of the text issue, interesting.

City, however, clearly didn't raise this as an issue or get out of jail free card, as we don't dispute the email content, just the context?

CAS is not actually a court despite the name so the emails can be admitted unfortunately. I don't think that's the worst thing in the world as if Soriano is telling the truth about them disregarding our proof in favour of relying on what out of context emails say, UEFA will just look incredibly amateur.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

From what I understand Colin saying , yes they could give it directly to ADUG as could Etihad, but City themselves advised that the 2 amounts be shown separately on the books to keep it above board. I will caveat that by saying thats my understanding of ehat @Prestwich_Blue posted it could be my misunderstanding.

Thanks mate. I would suggest it be prudent for this forum to also cut Colin some slack?

He's clearly providing his expert knowledge of the FFP subject with the information that is currently out in the public domain.

It is very helpful for us as layman, but it also needs to be reconciled that Col isn't getting to see the whole picture from City (I bet he wishes he was) so it can't be allowed to be the definitive narrative, just because it is more palatable to us in terms of being cleared.

I say this as someone who is regularly privy to transfers City might be working on, yet can be nailed to the cross for anything that doesn't materialise.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

CAS is not actually a court despite the name so the emails can be admitted unfortunately. I don't think that's the worst thing in the world as if Soriano is telling the truth about them disregarding our proof in favour of relying on what out of context emails say, UEFA will just look incredibly amateur.

Yes, it's a "court of arbitration", and not a "court of law".

The strength of Soriano's statement was notable, but we'll be stuck waiting.

I've seen an expert quoted that CAS announcing a suspension of the ban is a good thing, as it means the defence is not feeble.

I'm not an expert, but I don't really see how it really helps:
Suspension announced - either it's really complicated, or both defence and prosecution are strong.
No suspension => indicates an intention to have it done in 4 months (i.e. before the CL draw) => quite a simple thing to decide, whether out of need, or because one of defence and prosecution is feeble.

 

[domalino]

Yes, it's a "court of arbitration", and not a "court of law".

The strength of Soriano's statement was notable, but we'll be stuck waiting.

I've seen an expert quoted that CAS announcing a suspension of the ban is a good thing, as it means the defence is not feeble.

I'm not an expert, but I don't really see how it really helps:
Suspension announced - either it's really complicated, or both defence and prosecution are strong.
No suspension => indicates an intention to have it done in 4 months (i.e. before the CL draw) => quite a simple thing to decide, whether out of need, or because one of defence and prosecution is feeble.

I believe I saw an article (maybe Daniel Geey) saying that the chairman of the CAS panel makes the ruling to suspend or uphold the initial decision (ban) during proceedings and one of the ways they make that decision is basically who they think is more likely to win on the balance of the initial written statements. Another reason is how much damage it would do to one of the parties if it were upheld, and we could make a very convincing argument that damage would be 9 figures.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I believe I saw an article (maybe Daniel Geey) saying that the chairman of the CAS panel makes the ruling to suspend or uphold the initial decision (ban) during proceedings and one of the ways they make that decision is basically who they think is more likely to win on the balance of the initial written statements. Another reason is how much damage it would do to one of the parties if it were upheld, and we could make a very convincing argument that damage would be 9 figures.

Sounds very like the one I'm remembering!
It's a pretty obvious way to behave when laid out.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I believe I saw an article (maybe Daniel Geey) saying that the chairman of the CAS panel makes the ruling to suspend or uphold the initial decision (ban) during proceedings and one of the ways they make that decision is basically who they think is more likely to win on the balance of the initial written statements. Another reason is how much damage it would do to one of the parties if it were upheld, and we could make a very convincing argument that damage would be 9 figures.

I don't believe it will come to that end game, even now.

There is apparently a third way. CAS review the case evidence and can send it back to Uefa, ordering them to reach a new compromise.

It gets Uefa off the hook and, to a lesser extent, City aren't seen as the bad guys and could just accept a fine, should CAS consider the original ban over the top and tell City we won't get the ultimate outcome we want.

I retain my cynical hat on in all of this. The plebs aren't going to be allowed to see what really goes on behind closed doors.

Soriano attempted to draw a clear distinction in our public statement between Uefa and the IC/AC.

This has got Lee Harvey Oswald written all over it...

Lemetre supplied the bullets, the AC fired three shots, and UEFA were stood on the grassy knoll and hidden in the storm drain making sure it went to plan.

Uefa have plausible deniability. Cerefin is ready to go all Jack Ruby and shoot Lemetre and the AC into oblivion and life will go back to normal.