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

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

?

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  1. Two-year ban upheld

    161 vote(s)
    12.0%
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    411 vote(s)
    30.6%
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    703 vote(s)
    52.4%
  4. Other

    67 vote(s)
    5.0%
  1. GBrannan

    GBrannan

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2009
    Messages:
    134
    I think they’re points we’ll definitely contest. Those have been well documented points that we will contest. Maybe we put them in our dossier, maybe we didn’t. IF we did, and they didn’t get by a well established judge, then we might find ourselves in a trick position arguing them again.

    I don’t know if we’re on the right side of those fences. Neither does anyone else at this stage.

    What we were though is plain daft to be putting that stuff in emails in the first place. That’s why we are here. If we didn’t do that that, and those involved shouldn’t have, then we’d be fine.

    I hope we are.
     
  2. George Hannah

    George Hannah

    Joined:
    19 Mar 2009
    Messages:
    17,433
    Location:
    The Barcelona of the North
    We could be as pure as the driven snow
     
  3. BJL_City

    BJL_City

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2016
    Messages:
    12,043
    Location:
    GDPR
    Can't hold lawyers in a higher regard. Besides, despite what his scope and remit was, if he was told "prescribe the appropriate punishment based on this evidence" then it's not exactly an open judgement.
     

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. Ric

    Ric

    Joined:
    22 May 2004
    Messages:
    39,353
    My hope is that we didn’t fully comply with the investigation as we knew that they would find us guilty regardless, so have withheld evidence for the CAS hearing in pursuit of total exoneration. Might be wishful thinking, but who knows. Going to be fascinating to see how this plays out anyway, especially as the stakes are so high.
     
    dadnlad and cheekybids like this.
  5. GBrannan

    GBrannan

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2009
    Messages:
    134
    I don’t know. We’ll find out in due course.

    As others have said, if we disputed the accuracy of the content of the emails we’d have surely raised that by now.

    It seems like we’ll be arguing the interpretation of those emails against our accounting methods as well as the various rules of UEFA regarding previous accounting periods, settlement agreements etc.
     
  6. GBrannan

    GBrannan

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2009
    Messages:
    134
    Time will tell
     
  7. Ric

    Ric

    Joined:
    22 May 2004
    Messages:
    39,353
    We’ve pointedly not disputed the content of the emails, but continually said that they’ve been taken out of context.
     
  8. The Future’s Blue!

    The Future’s Blue!

    Joined:
    17 Dec 2019
    Messages:
    162
    Team supported:
    City
    I don’t think you can be that hard on City, Pinto hacked far greater fish than us and if he wanted in nobody was stopping him.

    When you look at this from a wider scale you see why we have been cautious in giving anybody our business details. We got done by the authorities because we didn’t want to supply full information to refute the allegations as, when we were asked to supply more detail back in 2014, our business model and transactions were basically handed over to our direct rivals via a member of a club only a few miles away.

    Maybe, just maybe, the investigatory committee forced the issue with a huge punishment in order for us to prove our compliance to CAS by handing over the stuff that we withheld because it would give them more insight into our business model.

    Whatever the case, we need to give the opposing arbiters as little information as possible to prove our case, otherwise, we end up giving the ECA Governors something to get their teeth into.
     
    Delboy352, Newman Noggs and M18CTID like this.
  9. GBrannan

    GBrannan

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2009
    Messages:
    134
    Maybe.

    From my limited understanding of CAS, it’s that sort of process they’re interested in.

    Has the due process been followed etc.

    My point the other day was really just that this is much more complex than is being portrayed here. There has been a level of highly qualified legal scrutiny paid to our case thus far. It really wasn’t Gill, Parry etc sat in a room thumbing through our documents and coming to a whimsical decision. Or, if was, they, at least allegedly, did so behind a highly qualified legal professional prepared to put his name on the sanction.

    Now, why he did that could be, as one poster implied, because of previous cases and UEFA wanted to make a point. Or maybe he did it because our dossier isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Or maybe he didn’t ever get our full dossier? I find that hard to believe though because why on earth would we want the continued damage to our reputation, players, managers etc beyond 2019? We wouldn’t. Even City can’t be that masochistic!

    I hope we’ve got our stuff together and show UEFA up for what it is. But we’re, as it stands, up against a sanction from a body whose rules we signed up to, no matter how rubbish and skewed they are.
     
    BobbyBoy likes this.
  10. M18CTID

    M18CTID

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2008
    Messages:
    12,623
    Location:
    In the cricket club at Burnley away
    Haven’t we got a dossier of evidence seemingly showing no wrong-doing which UEFA decided to ignore? If the club are telling the truth on that then surely that will show we’ve gone to substantial lengths to clear our name, but yeah, maybe we’ve got something else up our sleeve too in case that failed - I’ve seen a suggestion that we might present them with the Etihad accounts which will show the source of the funds didn’t come from our owner. Now that would be piss funny if we casually dropped that one in on the first morning of the appeal.
     

Share This Page