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

[Dirty Harry]

It would.

And fuck you too!

Love you really xxx

 

[Ballet-on-ice]

I agree with Ric let’s just wait and see. People have been confident in many aspects in the past and got it incredibly wrong. A CAS case can easily go bad. If it was as simple as PB is suggesting this would’ve got thrown out at CAS1

my personal belief though is the whole thing is a smear campaign to damage city’s rep. That job is done. Even if we get found not guilty and CAS throw the case out, people will still call city cheats, that’s the truth. This impacts the club in attracting future fans, future sponsors and most importantly future players. The damage is irreversible done. I have had people tell me even if we win at CAS that we’re still cheating scum and it’s only because expensive lawyers got us out of it on some technicality.

The only way this damage gets undone is if city actually go for the jugular and counter-sue for damages and get money back. But I just can’t see the club go down that path, we never have

You're right in that the damage will never be undone but the only way to counter the damage is to keep on winning trophies, and that starts tomorrow. If we don't win anything then nobody talks about us. What was that Oscar Wilde quote again?.........

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Love you really xxx

Especially if you put the word ‘maximum’ in front of it :-)

On that basis, either tbf!

 

[Bandofblues]

It does prove it beyond sensible amounts of doubt. It's an internal document from after the fact stating the sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council.

I can't see anything in the document relating to sponsorship(?) but I'm not disagreeing with you.
It does appear to confirm that Etihad is massively supported by the government, that shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone though as Etihad is acting a a major promotional vehicle for the country and its tourism ambitions. Pretty clear that Abu Dhabi wants to replicate the success that Dubai (and Emirates) enjoy.

If the Abu Dhabi government is going to prop up the airline to the tune of several billion then it stands to reason that £60m sponsorship would hardy even register.

The FFP charges alledging our owner is pushing money in to City via back door sponsorship are completely misinterpreting the bigger picture.

• The Abu Dhabi government has pumped billions into Etihad to promote the country and its fledgling tourist industry
• Advertising is a key part of that strategy, everyone has heard of Dubai and Emirates and Abu Dhabi wants to emulate that success
• Emirates sponsor AC Milan, Real Madrid, Arsenal FC, SL Benfica, Hamburger SV, Paris Saint-Germain, and Olympiacos FC and the FA cup ( or at least they did in 2016, can't be arsed looking any closer)
• Etihad sponsor Man City
• The sponsorship has fucking well worked ! City have won 4 PL titles, 2 FA cups, [edit] Five League Cups and have competed in the CL every fucking year - an advertising executive couldn't wish for better (well maybe add a CL win but cross fingers on that one)
• Etihad isn't there to promote Man City, Man City are there to promote Etihad
• (Edit:) The sponsorship has been assessed as FAIR VALUE by UEFA itself!

The Etihad sponsorship is absolutely NOT a mechanism to artificially boost Man City's revenue its a vehicle to promote Abu Dhabi. This is geo-politics at work, nothing to do with football other than football providing the global exposure needed.

It's fuck all to do with UEFA and I'm staggered that the FFP narrative is still going.

 

[Dirty Harry]

It says he isnt a blue.

It crossed my mind, anyone who knows how our owners work should know they don't air their (perceived dirty or otherwise) laundry in public, and the only way to deal with a smear campaign is to go about your business quietly and with dignity, you find out who's really on your side then.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I agree with Ric let’s just wait and see. People have been confident in many aspects in the past and got it incredibly wrong. A CAS case can easily go bad. If it was as simple as PB is suggesting this would’ve got thrown out at CAS1

my personal belief though is the whole thing is a smear campaign to damage city’s rep. That job is done. Even if we get found not guilty and CAS throw the case out, people will still call city cheats, that’s the truth. This impacts the club in attracting future fans, future sponsors and most importantly future players. The damage is irreversible done. I have had people tell me even if we win at CAS that we’re still cheating scum and it’s only because expensive lawyers got us out of it on some technicality.

The only way this damage gets undone is if city actually go for the jugular and counter-sue for damages and get money back. But I just can’t see the club go down that path, we never have

We were in the third tier of English football 21 years ago, and on Wednesday we deservedly won at the Bernabéu. Why would you think anything was uncontrovertibly irreversible?

 

[GaudinoMotors]

That’s not strictly true. No more than the statutory maximum that was in situ at the time can be imposed (ECHR Article 7) but (despite what Sun and Mail readers would have everyone believe) sentences for sexual offences have gone through the roof in the last 30 years, so someone being found guilty of historical sexual offences from, say, the 1980’s will be subject to a far tougher sentence today than they would have been if they’d been convicted at the time. Up to three to four times as much, up to that statutory maximum, isn’t unusual.

Whether that’s unjust depends on the offence imo. A bit of non-consensual groping of an adult in a public place should not be dealt with more harshly than it was at the time imo as it was much less socially unacceptable a generation ago, whereas anything that involves kids or rape has never been ok in post-industrial times and should therefore be punished as per today. I think it’s wrong to impose our own sense of morality upon people who have previously faltered in a relatively minor sense - although as it’s a largely pragmatic view, as a philosophical position I’m not entirely sure I’m on totally solid ground as it’s arguably philosophically inconsistent.

Sometimes you make sense

 

[Dirty Harry]

Especially if you put the word ‘maximum’ in front of it :-)

On that basis, either tbf!

Lol, yes, I should know better that a word omitted or in the wrong place can make all the difference mate.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Sometimes you make sense

But am I philosophically consistent?!

 

[GaudinoMotors]

But am I philosophically consistent?!

Yes and don't worry, I'm not taking it any further.