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

[blue ranger]

What is this smoking gun that people are referring to?

 

[blueinsa]

What is this smoking gun that people are referring to?

If we told you, we would have to kill you.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

What is this smoking gun that people are referring to?

If we told you, we would have to kill you.

With the smoking gun..

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

With the smoking gun..

With the non smoking gun!:))

 

[NZBlue]

With the non smoking gun!:))

These days it's probably a vaping gun


Much more PC

 

[kippax4ever]

the thing with Jordan i dont get is, he ran Palace and invested in them. Not very well as he lost virtually all of his money but he did exactly the same thing as Mansour!! Albeit on a smaller scale but somehow were the worst thing since satan!! Utterly bizarre

Compared to HH he,s a Dell Boy

 

[caseball]

Keith Moon put up an interesting post on Saturday about Qatar's global game.

PSG get an easy ride. They were a founding member of the G14 in 2000 despite having been in existence for all of 30 years. Where did their influence come from? Football politics no doubt. French capital, owned by cable TV broadcaster Canal+. Enter the Qataris and they start making waves. They never once made any attempt to comply with FFP but they got the same punishment as City who bust a gut to comply. They were up again in the last couple of years and got off again due to what looked like a conveniently bungled investigation by UEFA. Soon after, he gets a seat on the Executive Committee of UEFA.

Could you imagine Khaldoon getting that? Even if he wanted, which I doubt. You wouldn't have thought the PSG guy was one of the people in their good books. So what was the quid pro quo? Did he offer to stitch City up for a seat at the table?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

"Offshore" lawyers exist in other countries
They may have the story but, if it's as dynamite as suggested it would require robust verification of the fats before publishing, maybe that's what PB alludes to in his comment "lawyers"? It doesn't mean there are injunctions, however a journalist may have asked questions of alleged offenders and they deny it and threaten legal action should it be published.
City won't release anything until they are ready and will have a strategy of how they do so. Remember the Washington Post waited until they had checked, and checked again, the facts of the Watergate scandal.

Here's how it works. Most journalists ideally require two sources to corroborate the story before they'll publish. As an example, a journalist gets a tip from a source that a player has done something that's very newsworthy. He then has to check it and goes to the player's club or agent.

I know of a real-life examples where the player's agent was approached about a potentially very damaging story for a well known player. The agent already knows of course because the player has told him. He persuades the journo either not to write the story or, if there's no possibility of keeping it out of the press, to tone it down significantly. To get that outcome they'll have to promise something. That could be something helpful, such as exclusive access to that agent's clients, another big story as an exclusive at a future date or some other inducement that's more useful to the journalist than publishing the story would be.

Or the reaction could be negative. The club/agent will firmly deny the story and may back that up with "print that and you'll be in court the next day". The journalist, his editor and the paper's legal team then have to make a decision and some are very risk averse. The phone hacking scandal possibly cost some papers nine-figure sums (£100m+) for example.

Or the club will refuse to comment and refer the journalist to their lawyers. One way or another, a few minutes later, the journalist is told or sent an email proving that there is an injunction or some other restriction in place against reporting x, y and z.

What will most likely have happened in the Liverpool hacking case is that the Times were briefed, probably by City in my view but could have been someone else with knowledge of the case, and were shown evidence to support the story. So they ran it. Every other paper sees that and contacts both City & Liverpool. We say "No comment" and Liverpool say "No comment and we'll sue if you publish". The editor of each paper will ask if the journalist has a direct source on this, to which the answer would be "No". So they can't run it as they couldn't defend it in court.

Just struck me that there's an interesting parallel to the UEFA FFP story, where UEFA may have little more than the Der Spiegel stories to go on. CAS isn't a court of course so they don't necessarily have the same burden of proof.

 

[SilverFox2]

I’d be staggered if Jordan actually believed the drivel that tumbles from his mouth. He’s got bills to pay.

I think you are correct.
Despite being no good at investment (at least in football) he helps to give credibility to the "financial" part of the biased TS propaganda.

As you say if you have bills to pay you earn the means wherever you can.

 

[domalino]

Here's how it works. Most journalists ideally require two sources to corroborate the story before they'll publish. As an example, a journalist gets a tip from a source that a player has done something that's very newsworthy. He then has to check it and goes to the player's club or agent.

I know of a real-life examples where the player's agent was approached about a potentially very damaging story for a well known player. The agent already knows of course because the player has told him. He persuades the journo either not to write the story or, if there's no possibility of keeping it out of the press, to tone it down significantly. To get that outcome they'll have to promise something. That could be something helpful, such as exclusive access to that agent's clients, another big story as an exclusive at a future date or some other inducement that's more useful to the journalist than publishing the story would be.

Or the reaction could be negative. The club/agent will firmly deny the story and may back that up with "print that and you'll be in court the next day". The journalist, his editor and the paper's legal team then have to make a decision and some are very risk averse. The phone hacking scandal possibly cost some papers nine-figure sums (£100m+) for example.

Or the club will refuse to comment and refer the journalist to their lawyers. One way or another, a few minutes later, the journalist is told or sent an email proving that there is an injunction or some other restriction in place against reporting x, y and z.

What will most likely have happened in the Liverpool hacking case is that the Times were briefed, probably by City in my view but could have been someone else with knowledge of the case, and were shown evidence to support the story. So they ran it. Every other paper sees that and contacts both City & Liverpool. We say "No comment" and Liverpool say "No comment and we'll sue if you publish". The editor of each paper will ask if the journalist has a direct source on this, to which the answer would be "No". So they can't run it as they couldn't defend it in court.

Just struck me that there's an interesting parallel to the UEFA FFP story, where UEFA May have little more than the Der Spiegel stories to go on. CAS isn't a court of course so they don't necessarily have the same burden of proof.

What stage would you say the other story the papers supposedly have is at? The "Here's what we'll give you to not print" bit?