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

[Cobwebcat]

UEFA can't even get this right.

Never known an organisation repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot so many times.

I think they will ban us because they are that stupid. City will take UEFA to CAS and win. Whether City take it further and get damages will be interesting.

UEFA are either ignoring their lawyers or getting bad advice. How much is this personal vendetta worth to UEFA and their cartel? It's probably their last chance to see sense.

 

[jollylescott]

I'm very pleased City has gone on the offensive. It was essential that they did so.

Let's see if the rebuttal is headlined by the media.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Sky sources confirms : Uefa will recommend a 1 season ban From the CL


Sue them to death

Typically accurate Sky Sources then.

If they’re parroting the report in the NYT then they have it wrong. The report says the investigatory panel may recommend a ban but Yves Leterme will have the final say on the recommendation. This is then submitted to an adjudicatory chamber.

I would love to know who the members of the investigatory panel are other than Mr. Leterme...

 

[city2]

UEFA should start looking at clubs who are millions in debt rather than a witch hunt on 1 or 2 clubs.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I reckon Pep will have half of these tweets and newspaper articles sellotaped to the dressing room wall. That's what the team are fighting

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I may be being a little naive here but how can stolen (hacked) evidence be admissible?

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commen...-unlawfully-obtained-evidence/5062566.article

In short, its allowed but will vary from country to country.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I'm sure David Gill will be making sure we get a fair hearing

 

[M18CTID]

The 'relationship' between our executive and Liverpool's is on a major war footing and has been for a while.

As a club, we are aware of some of the lobbying which is being done by them to various bodies. They are constantly applying pressure and the next call is a big one.

They stole important data when some of our technical coaches left and it was traced back to them. Recently, some of our medical staff have also gone to Liverpool. They, along with Gill, have also been the ones pushing Tebas' name to replace Scudamore at the Premier League.

Can't we do the fuckers for stealing the data?

Methinks Liverpool are on very rocky ground here if they are indeed behind this smear campaign because the people behind City are far more powerful than John W.Henry will ever be. Plus I doubt they're squeaky clean themselves

 

[Cityfan1977]

I fear the worst. Big fuck up by the club and they know it.
The only thing I’m clinging to is that the information can’t be used as it was obtained illegally.
What I can tell you is the information is all true and somebody got it by hacking the chairman’s emails.

ok if your right why would the club put out a statement like that ? "Manchester City welcomes the opening of a formal UEFA investigation as an opportunity to bring to an end the speculation resulting from the illegal hacking and out of context publication of City emails. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false. The Club’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record."

 

[Newman Noggs]

Interesting @Newman Noggs. Could this actually be significant enough to destroy their case do you think? I mean, regardless of other factors.

All I will say is that it gives them a choice. If they now go ahead and propose a ban (especially of one year) it will show that it was a real leak and that the integrity of the investigation is compromised. That's as serious as it gets for a professionally conducted enquiry and strengthens our potential argument that it was never a properly-conducted independent investigation but a pre-judged witch-hunt. And the answers to the questions I have posed above need to be answered. Who and why.

The NYT has a choice. They can either admit they made it up (which no-one believes they did) and explain why or, alternatively, confirm that they do indeed have a source from within the enquiry (who they will not, and don't have to, name) which has the effect described above.

Believe me, this is a major bollock dropped.