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)
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    409 vote(s)
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    702 vote(s)
  4. Other

    67 vote(s)
  1. cheekybids


    18 Sep 2009
    Being the only ones playing by the rules isn’t always enough when playing in a crooked game.

    Look at the shit that goes on in the world & when money & power are at stake nothing surprises me. It’s an impossible task when the media is controlled as it’s normally shame of exposure that keeps society honest but when you control the media they can make any judgement.

    I have to believe we are well connected & can win & control this. Let’s be honest the biggest club in the world is owned by blokes who own a few malls. If the Sheik is Prem league, the Glazers are Conference.
    laserblue, Kirkstall Blue and M18CTID like this.
  2. BJL_City


    13 Dec 2016
    It's also doesn't mean that even if UEFA had it, and read it, that they gave the entirety of its contents to the chambers...
    M18CTID likes this.
  3. Bodicoteblue


    23 Apr 2012
    It’s interesting that people are concerned that uefa are represented by qualified legal professionals when uefa are asking those very professionals, whom they appointed and instructed to act within uefa guidelines, to try, and to judge a case where they are required to apply, not the law, in which they have been trained and are experienced, but uefa’s own set of regulations which appear, in the eyes of many, to be unlawful in respect of European law.
    This was surely the salient lesson of the Bosman ruling
    tolmie's hairdoo and cheekybids like this.


  4. chesterbells


    15 Apr 2010
    Agreed, stakes are v high. Although the covid lockdown situation has taken the edge off the whole business, for me anyway. Instead of being 100% anxious about the outcome, I’d say it’s probably only about 85%. I mean, it’s important, but it’s only football, y’know. And our club will still be there for me to support, whatever.
    Rammy Blue and Newman Noggs like this.
  5. blue oli

    blue oli

    3 Jul 2015
    Ok - been fairly busy recently what with all that’s going on, so taking an hour to try and catch up on stuff - I see we have the dates now for the hearing, but anyone willing to give a Blinkist version of the thread for the last couple of weeks please ?
  6. GBrannan


    16 Jan 2009
    My hope too.

    If not it’s going to be very dodgy.

    My point, as made earlier, is that the idea that the final verdict was made only by disgruntled clubs and voiciferous failed politicians seems pretty wide of the mark. It was eventually done by a very senior legal professional. We can debate the merits of that and why he may have come to that conclusion but he ultimately did. He will have a reputation to keep up. He won’t want to look stupid.

    We may win. I hope we do. But the whole process is going to go through a proper grinder and we’ll see what comes out.

    Maybe it’s too long supporting City, but I fear we’ll win the battle, by highlighting pretty poor processes etc, but lose the war and be found to have not abided by the rules we signed up to.

    I hope I’m wrong. But that possibility is where the debate should lie.
  7. tolmie's hairdoo

    tolmie's hairdoo

    20 Feb 2008
    behind enemy lines, regularly
    We are appealing again UEFA's conclusions not findings, they found nothing.

    They have gone after us for non-compliance, the AC have presumed to join the dots.

    Incidentally, whilst the judge in question is certainly of repute, his background is Human Rights (hardly a hanging offence), he had the horn for both Qatar and Abu Dhabi, previously.

    It is difficult to overstate the vested interests between the various factions within Uefa and the two chambers on FFP.

    As you say, we are now going before some very qualified legal professionals, that's all we have wanted from the outset.

    A fair hearing.

    It would be folly for us not to recruit the best counsel for this particular case, which is as much about procedure as it is about us being able to trust the people we are submitting evidence to.

    Our defence isn't about whataboutery, that's not what CAS has any interest in.
  8. GBrannan


    16 Jan 2009
    I would’ve thought the context being that they’re not really telling the whole truth/ picture.

    It’s hard to deny we’re close to the wind. I’d expect all clubs in our position are. We’re needing to be whiter than white though, which is ironic given the way such investigations are seemingly targeted against our owners, because we’re in the glare of of a bitter old top 3 media that’s taking away revenue... coupled with our newly acquainted friends in Europe taking a passing interest in how we operate for the same reasons.
    Last edited: 23 May 2020
    Exeter Blue I am here likes this.
  9. Ric


    22 May 2004
    Yes, the pandemic has changed my perspective a fair bit. Football really isn’t that important at the moment in the scheme of things. Even if we were to get a reduced one season ban (which still seems the most probable outcome to me), then for it to fall in a year when fans aren’t likely to be able to watch games anyway would lessen the blow a bit.
  10. GBrannan


    16 Jan 2009

    That process seems like something we’re going to look at for sure.

    It looks like a very stacked deck. Not seemingly fit for purpose etc. But, a due process was observed and it seems like they do, at least sometimes, stack up at CAS.

    In recent times, it looks like we’re going to go all in like no one else could or would. The stakes are then obviously high. As City Xtra put, it really is City v UEFA.

Share This Page