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

    197 vote(s)
    13.1%
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    422 vote(s)
    28.2%
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    815 vote(s)
    54.4%
  4. Other

    65 vote(s)
    4.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    50,670
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    You're adding 2+2 and coming up with something other than 4. You're mixing up the Companies Act with a set of reporting rules for a private organisation.

    If Etihad gave us £5m and we reported that as £50m, we'd be inflating our revenue and profits by £45m. That could well be an offence under the Companies Act. It would certainly be a breach of FFP.

    If, however, Etihad pay us £50m even though only £5m was "their" money and the rest came from Sheikh Mansour or the Executive Council, as long as we record that as a £50m receipt, then we've committed no offence under Company law. We may have breached FFP in certain circumstances though.
     
    Last edited: 29 May 2020
  2. Didsbury Dave

    Didsbury Dave

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2007
    Messages:
    30,488
    Good to see you post again mate. Hope you’re well.

    I share your cynicism of the “smoking gun”/irrefutable proof. If you have something like that you don’t pull it out like a rabbit from a hat in court. You use it to stop the court ever taking place with all its financial and image costs. I think some fans have been carried away by the club’s bullishness: you have to be bullish about your own evidence; it’s part of the game.

    I’d take a one year ban right now and my suspicion is that’s what we will get.
     
  3. BillyShears

    BillyShears

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2004
    Messages:
    8,009
    Location:
    King Kunta
    I'm almost convinced by this post and a few others about Soriano that maybe he's too deeply embedded in the club to lose his job over something like this.
     

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. BillyShears

    BillyShears

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2004
    Messages:
    8,009
    Location:
    King Kunta
    A 1 year ban, in a season which will be played behind closed doors and could be disrupted, isn't a big deal for me. I really fear the 2 year ban.
     
  5. Didsbury Dave

    Didsbury Dave

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2007
    Messages:
    30,488
    Yeah, I agree. A two year ban would be catastrophic. The costs could be half a billion. It might even be the final straw for Abu Dhabi.
     
    Keeper! likes this.
  6. Citizen Green

    Citizen Green

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2009
    Messages:
    6,393
    Location:
    CAS
    Team supported:
    Manchester City FC
    My thoughts exactly, I'm of the opinion that the club may be best taking this offer if it becomes clear we won't be getting a full exoneration, rather than taking this further again to the Swiss courts.
     
  7. Centurions

    Centurions

    Joined:
    3 Sep 2012
    Messages:
    10,955
    Location:
    Not 100% sure at the moment...
    Txiki is director of football, although I don't know his full remit I don't think he has much input on the FFP side (or does he?).
     
  8. blue roo

    blue roo

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2007
    Messages:
    847
    Location:
    Perth Australia
    Yep , if there was a bookies market on the outcome , I would ‘lump on’ a year ban right now.
     
    Didsbury Dave likes this.
  9. Rammy Blue

    Rammy Blue

    Joined:
    23 May 2008
    Messages:
    23,498
    Sheikh Mansour is probably bored now anyway.
     
    Didsbury Dave likes this.
  10. Exeter Blue I am here

    Exeter Blue I am here

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2011
    Messages:
    7,796
    Location:
    Take a wild guess.......
    What truly irks with all of this shit is that our ‘crime’ amounts to no more than wanting to be allowed to spend the same amount of money as the old guard and to compete on a level playing field (and even now the highest wage bill and squad cost belongs to United, not us). The punishment we will get however, if we are found guilty of undermining the laughably named Financial ‘Fair’ Play rules, will be so utterly disproportionate to the offence, that it will make transportation to Van Diemen’s Land for stealing a turnip, seem like Steven Gerrard getting found not guilty by a jury of Scousers after he blatantly and publicly beat up a DJ. I have not the slightest doubt that all of what you say above is true, albeit that PB has qualified the Company Law angle for us. The intention of the rags and the dippers, et al, is to ruin us completely and irrevocably, and they will leave no stone unturned, no smear story unleaked, in their quest to achieve that. If we don’t win this case then we are quite likely to be utterly fucked, and if our enemies can leverage the Premier League to relegate us and strip us of our titles then they surely will.
    The positive point, and Dear God I pray it wasn’t an elaborate bluff, is that whatever his briefing was, we gave Ceferin short shrift, an act which points to supreme confidence amongst the club’s hierarchy. The negative is the concern, IMO, that whatever leaks and dodges UEFA have or have not been responsible for during the process, will ultimately sit as second fiddle to our ability to discredit the content of those emails, whatever their provenance, and I don’t think CAS will view City opting not to do that on the grounds that they were hacked or were taken out of context, in a positive light. I hope then that we have that evidence, and if we do, then I don’t understand why we have not produced it sooner, and our failure (as far as we know) to have done so, makes me very wary of how this is all going to pan out
     
    Last edited: 29 May 2020
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page