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
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gordyola said:
Wasn't it determined that City had to request it and it looks like they haven't CAS being aware of the nature of the appeal would be more likely to expedite it if the suspension wasn't requested
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's not in City's interest to request a suspension of the ban pending their investigation.
 
Marvin said:
I don't see how it's not in City's interest to request a suspension of the ban pending their investigation.
Click to expand...

It might not be, If they believe it can be dealt with quickly instead. Suspending the ban may mean CAS take longer to review it, and it affects summer recruitment plans, hangin over the club into next season. If they feel the case is strong enough, they may fancy their chances of CAS getting it overturned quickly enough.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would we brief the Times and not another newspaper?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  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.