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

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Are you sure?

Case is 8-10 June

Season restarts 17th June

Sorry - thought I'd read 12th

 

[oakiecokie]

Yeah, we'll see soon enough. Then it's trebles all round or hari kiri. My drink is already on ice.

Shaken but not stirred ?

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I think a few are just confusing what CAS is actually for and its remit?

There will be plenty of facets to our defence but it is still a hearing about procedure and protocols, unless others can put me right?

I think they have a broader remit than that mate, it won't just be about procedure, doubt it would take 3 days if that was the case.

Ceferin himself said it was "a big file", when he did that interview with, was it Swanson?

I'm sure the irrefutable evidence won't be about procedure either.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I've just had a look at the FAQ's on the CAS website. And there are 3 different types of cases.

Ordinary, Mediation and Appeals.

I believe our case is Appeals, and a judgement can actually be given as soon as the case is finished. Not saying that will happen but is possible.

 

[KS55]

I think a few are just confusing what CAS is actually for and its remit?

There will be plenty of facets to our defence but it is still a hearing about procedure and protocols, unless others can put me right?

The idea has been floated that CAS is all about procedure. This is untrue, they can enquire and
rule on matters of substance. In our case, I'm sure they will look hard not only at UEFA's procedural performance but also at their substantive case. I think we will win on both counts, but then all those years ago, I thought we would beat Fernebhace.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

The idea has been floated that CAS is all about procedure. This is untrue, they can enquire and
rule on matters of substance. In our case, I'm sure they will look hard not only at UEFA's procedural performance but also at their substantive case. I think we will win on both counts, but then all those years ago, I thought we would beat Fernebhace.

The home leg was my first ever game at Maine Road. Sat on my dad's shoulders in the Kippax Street. The rest would be history but as we know we don’t have any

 

[KS55]

The home leg was my first ever game at Maine Road. Sat on my dad's shoulders in the Kippax Street. The rest would be history but as we know we don’t have any

I was a dyed in the wool Kippax man by then. We were dreadful in the home leg!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why would he offer a deal, especially any deal he knows City will outright reject? That makes no sense, either he's certain he has City bang to rights and wants to avoid years in court rooms knowing they will appeal or else he thinks the case is wafer thin and will collapse. In the latter scenario why not just release leak the evidence that blows the case up, quietly throw a couple under the bus and get this all over with it.

Why should we accept a deal if we are innocent that doesn't make sence

Why would he offer a deal and why would we refuse? sometimes it's just easier for all parties just to give something up even if they're not necessarily convinced it's the right thing.

Well I suspect he offered us a deal because he's not the enemy but is piggy-in-the-middle between us and the G-14 clubs and he was trying to avoid a conflict that would potentially split UEFA. I was told that the G-14 threatened to split from UEFA if we didn't receive the harshest punishment. They threaten that all the time but the pressure is on for a European Super League, which potentially leaves UEFA out in the cold and robs them of valuable revenue. So he's trying to walk a tightrope whereby we're punished but not too badly and he hopefully keeps the other clubs onside as well. Personally I don't think that was ever going to work. If the two CFCB Chambers are as independent as he says they are, then either he couldn't deliver a deal or they aren't independent.

I'm also told the evidence IS wafer thin so maybe he was just trying it on, getting us to take a plea bargain to save a case that had little chance of success and would make him look a bit stupid, as President, when UEFA copped some embarrassing flak from CAS. So to save face essentially. I'm not sure he knew we'd reject it but he does now. He's also a politician and I also suspect that he wouldn't be too upset if the G-14 got a bloody nose and had to retreat in ignominy, with the wind taken very much out of their sails.

And to refuse a deal that seems quite tempting on the surface, we really must either be completely convinced of both our innocence and of our prospect of proving it. Or else we want our day in court even if there's a chance we'll lose just so that we can launch a few missiles at our enemies.

 

[Silva2021]

Why would he offer a deal and why would we refuse? sometimes it's just easier for all parties just to give something up even if they're not necessarily convinced it's the right thing.

Well I suspect he offered us a deal because he's not the enemy but is piggy-in-the-middle between us and the G-14 clubs and he was trying to avoid a conflict that would potentially split UEFA. I was told that the G-14 threatened to split from UEFA if we didn't receive the harshest punishment. They threaten that all the time but the pressure is on for a European Super League, which potentially leaves UEFA out in the cold and robs them of valuable revenue. So he's trying to walk a tightrope whereby we're punished but not too badly and he hopefully keeps the other clubs onside as well. Personally I don't think that was ever going to work. If the two CFCB Chambers are as independent as he says they are, then either he couldn't deliver a deal or they aren't independent.

I'm also told the evidence IS wafer thin so maybe he was just trying it on, getting us to take a plea bargain to save a case that had little chance of success and would make him look a bit stupid, as President, when UEFA copped some embarrassing flak from CAS. So to save face essentially. I'm not sure he knew we'd reject it but he does now. He's also a politician and I also suspect that he wouldn't be too upset if the G-14 got a bloody nose and had to retreat in ignominy, with the wind taken very much out of their sails.

And to refuse a deal that seems quite tempting on the surface, we really must either be completely convinced of both our innocence and of our prospect of proving it. Or else we want our day in court even if there's a chance we'll lose just so that we can launch a few missiles at our enemies.

I’ve been told in describing UEFA’s evidence as wafer thin, would be to seriously under estimate the of strength of a wafer, I take it we’re free to keep playing!!

Great line, slightly adapted from one of the better bbc sitcoms of the last few years.

I seriously have no clue and would have preferred us to have shook hands on the no ban deal.

To not do that does indicate innocence to me, the question is can we prove it as that seems to be the case. Hopefully it does not drag on.

 

[KS55]

Why would he offer a deal and why would we refuse? sometimes it's just easier for all parties just to give something up even if they're not necessarily convinced it's the right thing.

Well I suspect he offered us a deal because he's not the enemy but is piggy-in-the-middle between us and the G-14 clubs and he was trying to avoid a conflict that would potentially split UEFA. I was told that the G-14 threatened to split from UEFA if we didn't receive the harshest punishment. They threaten that all the time but the pressure is on for a European Super League, which potentially leaves UEFA out in the cold and robs them of valuable revenue. So he's trying to walk a tightrope whereby we're punished but not too badly and he hopefully keeps the other clubs onside as well. Personally I don't think that was ever going to work. If the two CFCB Chambers are as independent as he says they are, then either he couldn't deliver a deal or they aren't independent.

I'm also told the evidence IS wafer thin so maybe he was just trying it on, getting us to take a plea bargain to save a case that had little chance of success and would make him look a bit stupid, as President, when UEFA copped some embarrassing flak from CAS. So to save face essentially. I'm not sure he knew we'd reject it but he does now. He's also a politician and I also suspect that he wouldn't be too upset if the G-14 got a bloody nose and had to retreat in ignominy, with the wind taken very much out of their sails.

And to refuse a deal that seems quite tempting on the surface, we really must either be completely convinced of both our innocence and of our prospect of proving it. Or else we want our day in court even if there's a chance we'll lose just so that we can launch a few missiles at our enemies.

Great post. Sums up the politics nicely.