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.
Superb work that mate. I literally had no idea about these Liverpool-Roma links. On the face of it, that looks dodgy as fuck so it begs the question why it isn't getting widely reported, yet there's been plenty of column inches dedicated to the likes of Watford and Wolves and their ownership models.

I'll also add that I think John W.Henry is a fucking slimy c*nt and I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Someone posted earlier in the thread that Liverpool "reached out" to City after stories appeared that they were at the forefront of wanting City to be sanctioned. It wouldn't surprise me if that shithouse Henry realised he'd bitten off more than he could chew and went crawling to us as a result. We've seen it before with this prick making his sly digs about the Etihad deal, while conveniently ignoring the bumper kit deal they signed with Boston-based Warrior. Not to mention them signing sponsorship deals with dodgy companies like Standard Chartered and Tibet Water.
Dont think Henry Wii be with us much longer the pictures of him before he married a woman thirty years his junior and the ones sinc, looks like he's
Don't have the slightest issue with the journalism here, it seems carefully couched and there's no doubt there is a story here. Shooting the messenger is daft.

I have no doubts there are elements in UEFA who are out to get City to protect the positions of the established cartel - why object to someone reporting on that?

Equally, I'm sure City have done their level best to circumvent the restrictions that were attempted. City will not be "innocent" as far as the regulations go, they object in principle to the regulations in the first place.

So it's a collision between the two. Absolutely fair to report that UEFA want to push it this way. One or two others such as Martin Samuel write about how iniquitous those regulations are.

Some will use it as a stick with which to beat City, plus ca change.
I presume you know City banned this particular journo from the Etihad and was threatened with legal action back in 2012 for printing unfounded comments about the clubs owners @
 
They sold their share in around 2012, around the same time Henry bought the Boston Globe from them.

Shaun Goater stopped playing for City 17 years ago however it didn't stop him jumping about with excitement when things went our way at Brighton.
I can live with a Champions League ban, but hopefully its not a European ban, otherwise I'll have to go on holidays with my actual family *shudders*.

I would love another go at the Europa - much better trips. Play the reserves or whatever, I couldn't care less - just get me to Kazakhstan and Moldova.

More chances to batter United too!
 
City response

City have fired back after the article in the New York Times. A spokesperson said: 'Manchester City FC is fully cooperating in good faith with the CFCB IC's ongoing investigation.

'In doing so the club is reliant on both the CFCB IC's independence and commitment to due process; and on UEFA's commitment of the 7th of March that it '….will make no further comment on the matter while the investigation is ongoing'.

'The New York Times report citing 'people familiar with the case' is therefore extremely concerning.

'The implications are that either Manchester City's good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club's reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.

'Manchester City's published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record.


'The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.'
 
City response

'The implications are that either Manchester City's good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club's reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.



'The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.'

I like this bit.
 
Looks like City have been getting ready to respond all morning:


Mentioning how UEFA's line of 'no further comment until the investigation has concluded', followed by concerns of them breaking that promise with yesterday's 'The New York Times report citing 'people familiar with the case''.

Good that we got straight on the back of this.
 
Dont think Henry Wii be with us much longer the pictures of him before he married a woman thirty years his junior and the ones sinc, looks like he's

I presume you know City banned this particular journo from the Etihad and was threatened with legal action back in 2012 for printing unfounded comments about the clubs owners @

The NYT one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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.