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

[King KdB of Belgium]

I can see this case heading all the way to the courts. As afterall the evidence that UEFA got was all obtain illegally and therefore shouldn't have been allowed.

 

[better dead than red]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Happy to see these results.

That being said, I bolded a portion of your post that does concern me. The Guardian is a NEWSPAPER, at least it purports to be one. A newspaper should never, and I mean never, take a position in it's reporting of the news. The same goes for television news programmes.

If a paper wants to claim a position in the editorial section that is all well and good. But, the news portion of the paper should be reserved for the facts and facts only of a story. I am aware that rarely is the case these days with papers or news broadcasts however it would be nice if "news" men and women did their job properly and left the editorializing to others.

Just my 2p

 

[kaz7]

Sky have just said news/ statement is coming up concerning FFP.

what is that again? Coming up on tv you mean and today?

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

Is there anyone who knows if this is true. Now that we have lodge an appeal with CAS, UEFA cannot stop us from competing in next season's Champions League. I believe that there was a club who had been barred from the Champions League, but had to be allowed to compete pending the investigation by CAS, and their verdict.

 

[kaz7]

Is there anyone who knows if this is true. Now that we have lodge an appeal with CAS, UEFA cannot stop us from competing in next season's Champions League. I believe that there was a club who had been barred from the Champions League, but had to be allowed to compete pending the investigation by CAS, and their verdict.

We are asking to have the case over by the end of the season

 

[CWMCFC]

Is there anyone who knows if this is true. Now that we have lodge an appeal with CAS, UEFA cannot stop us from competing in next season's Champions League. I believe that there was a club who had been barred from the Champions League, but had to be allowed to compete pending the investigation by CAS, and their verdict.

CAS will advise for our ban to be deferred until a judgement is made. But it's likely that we'll have that judgement before the end of the season/start of next.

 

[George Hannah]

Just for info. Got a bit pissed off with Conn at the Guardian, so I posted a mild message mentioning his threads being closed for comment and numerous deletions from City match thread comment sections. Even something so harmless was deleted. So I wrote to the Guardian - excerpt:

'Please explain your decision to remove my comment from the thread “David Squires on … You are the VAR’. The comment was on-topic (David Squires specifically references David Conn’s articles). There was no personal attack, misrepresentation or flame war.

The Guardian seems to be the only newspaper that isn’t keeping its powder dry on (or at least offering alternative views on) the Manchester City matter – surprising, given the newspaper’s origins. As a reader of some 45 years standing, this disappoints me, but I accept the right of the paper to take a position. It’s clear, though, that there ARE other views, and the Guardian is censoring them... Do I think that David Conn is axe-grinding? Yes, of course I do, but I did not say so and on a public forum I would not say so. If the Guardian deletes a comment as harmless as mine – indeed, if it doesn’t allow people to go further and allow its ‘valued’ readers to debate the facts – then as well as being unfair, you are manipulating the story, giving the impression that David Conn’s views, most of which are mere comments, stand unchallenged. If you need to protect yourselves that carefully, don’t you think you might be on unsafe ground?

I’m going to be consulting the club about this in the absence of a reasonable reply. That’s not by way of a threat. It simply seems the right thing to do. I don’t doubt the club is well aware of David Conn’s reporting and may well have set the matter aside pending the appeal, but I wonder about the degree to which it has analysed media coverage on a comparative basis.

Also (and this will be of little concern to you), if I don’t get a response to this you will lose a long term reader. I buy the print edition every day, because of the paper’s perceived integrity. I would damage my own integrity if I continued to do so when you have locked your doors in this way.'

Got a relatively standard response, so I did copy in the club - asked them not to trouble themselves replying as it was a minor matter.

I don't claim ANY credit for this - it's coincidence I'm certain - but no Conn articles for a week and 4 or 5 positive ones on the club. Glad about that.

Maybe their resident City death cult decided to lay low for a while after the last pin sticking sessions.

 

[KS55]

One thing that's telling about the press coverage of the entire episode is that there's been no consideration given at any stage to the idea that we might have exploited loopholes in the rules and not broken them. This seems to me to be one possible explanation for UEFA and City taking completely different stances over this.

But the media view is that we're a state-owned club that has benefitted from state funding and that's how the court of public opinion sees it, too. There's potentially a significant difference between ADEC funding our Abu Dhabi sponsorships and ADUG footing the bill, because the former is arguably (depending on the interpretation of IAS 24) within the rules and the latter isn't, but most journalists and rival fans I've seen expressing a view seem not to give a toss about the distinction. We'll be seen as guilty and getting off an a technicality if that's what emerges in the end.

Just quote Arsenal at them. Sponsored big time by a loss making airline, buoyed up by state money. Financial doping, Wenger.

 

[KS55]

Is that short for Lizard? ;-)

Prop: David Ike

 

[MillionMilesAway]

From the Independent:

Ceferin was asked whether he had confidence in the rigour of the club financial control body (CFCB)’s investigation and judgement in the City case, which is likely to be challenged by the Premier League champions at the CAS hearing.

He said: “As a lawyer I respect the system. The system we have is the investigatory chamber and the adjudicatory chamber and then we have CAS in Lausanne.

“For some administrators it’s a problem if you have an independent body. For me it’s a privilege.

“I have not spoken with any of the members before or after and didn’t see the case, before or after.

“As much as I’ve seen now, Manchester City have gone to CAS and let’s wait for the decision.”

Can't see a problem with any of those comments.