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

[Prestwich_Blue]

If we could blow this case apart easily we would have done long ago. There’s been significant damage to the club already. I’ve not given up hope of course, but I’m not buying some of the bullishness.

I’ve been involved in lots of legal disputes and you always say your evidence is irrefutable or rock solid or whatever: You aren’t going to say “well we’ve got a few bits so let’s see what pans out”. If nothing else you can act aghast if your case isn’t accepted ;-)

But you can't blow a case apart if the people prosecuting you won't listen to your evidence and are hell bent on destroying you. How many innocent people have been jailed and even executed when the evidence that could have stopped that was under the court or police's nose?

 

[cjn]

But you can't blow a case apart if the people prosecuting you won't listen to your evidence and are hell bent on destroying you. How many innocent people have been jailed and even executed when the evidence that could have stopped that was under the court or police's nose?

Sure, but if you had smoking gun evidence proving your innocence (as we do obviously) you wouldn't tell the police about it at the time? You'd keep it secret and take your chances in court instead after your name's been plastered all over the papers as someone who's potentially committed a crime?

 

[HelloCity]

Can’t wait for the Netflix doc in a few years.

‘Making An FFP Scoundrel’

 

[KS55]

But you can't blow a case apart if the people prosecuting you won't listen to your evidence and are hell bent on destroying you. How many innocent people have been jailed and even executed when the evidence that could have stopped that was under the court or police's nose?

If UEFA completely ignored our evidence at the IC and the AC did not call for it (which they have the power to do), then UEFA are fucked on process grounds alone. Pannick's questions will be excruciating for them.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Sure, but if you had smoking gun evidence proving your innocence (as we do obviously) you wouldn't tell the police about it at the time? You'd keep it secret and take your chances in court instead after your name's been plastered all over the papers as someone who's potentially committed a crime?

It's more that it's either no-one's listening, or there's no-one to tell.

 

[KS55]

But you can't blow a case apart if the people prosecuting you won't listen to your evidence and are hell bent on destroying you. How many innocent people have been jailed and even executed when the evidence that could have stopped that was under the court or police's nose?

The epitome of a kangaroo court.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

I seem to remember Worsleyweb posting a while back (before the ban but whilst deliberations were ongoing) that he'd had a conversation with Txiki at some event and he said he was firmly under the impression that he didn't give two fucks about the case (sic).

The club have been very confident all along but here we are on the wrong end of a two year CL ban and hoping that CAS will overturn it.

Hopefully they will but I wouldn't put too more store on the apparent confidence of the club as, has been pointed on previously on this thread, they can hardly say anything else.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Well, 'as far as we know' is zilch because nobody has said what evidence was given by either side. We have to guess or deduce from public statements like "we submitted irrefutable evidence." The point is we just do not know, which is one of the reasons why I think we should publish all our evidence after the verdict, win or lose. The club have played their cards very close to their chest, which policy, given the media storm agin us, needs to be abandoned asap.

Yeh, win or lose, I’d like to see what cards we were holding, but I guess in part what we’re shown will depend on whether we intend to take the matter further from a legal standpoint or not.
Personally, I don’t really think we’ve done anything particularly heinous in terms of any financial advantage gained, but I do fear that we may not have the irrefutable evidence promised to torpedo the Der Spiegel “revelations”, and specifically the email suggesting money be routed from the “ADUG shareholder (ie Sheikh Mansour) to the club”, which I think CAS will weight heavily. Nor am I particularly swayed one way or the other by people citing Khaldoon’s confidence, if only because I’d expect him to say that come what may. The plus for me (if it’s true) is that we told Ceferin to piss off, but even that could just have been poor judgment on our part. Like you say, we just don’t know what has been said or done though, so it’s all a big guessing game.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Hope Lord Pannick takes a back seat to Paul Harris.

And his trusted side kick Orville ?

 

[petrusha]

seems like an excellent summary and I don’t suppose anyone knows more about the Etihad deal I am curios as to make up of the payments given that it covers the campus which at the time of signing did not exist so are the payments staggered would it help us if they are ? Wouldn’t it make them look more reasonable ? Does that matter ?

I think the Etihad deal was signed when it was known that there were plans for the Campus and it would be finished in 2014, so that was presumably factored in when the amount of the sponsorship was determined. I've no idea precisely how they apportion the amounts to be paid for different areas of the sponsorship, but the shirt sponsorship will be easily the biggest amount, and the stadium naming rights are also likely to be far more significant than those for the Campus.

But it's all irrelevant anyway in the case at hand. The issue isn't the amount of the sponsorship, which UEFA's own specialist appraisers accepted as being fairly valued. The problem is that, allegedly, most of the money was ultimately paid by ADUG.