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

[WRicko]

There has been some speculation about City's defence in the press but it is much more limited than the speculation you'll read on here. City has revealed nothing about the evidence or the arguments it will use in court because one of the arguments used in the first appeal to CAS was that information had been leaked from the IC in what is supposed to be a confidential process and so mounting our defence in the press would almost certainly be seen as prejudicing the case. Lord Pannick ia apparently quite a performer in court and we wouldn't want to spoil the effect by letting everyone know what lines he was going to deliver! One other fairly obvious reason for lack of speculation in the press of what our defence MIGHT be is lack of interest - to the press we're guilty and they simply wish to see us hanged, drawn and quartered. Suggesting we can challenge that guilty verdict is tantamount to treason, although, to be fair, in the immediate aftermath of the AC's decision the BBC ended a long report with the comment that City were confident of proving they had done nothing wrong.

can you point me in the direction of the bbc article ? Did it actually say much I mean saying we are saying we have done nothing wrong is not really explaining our defense. The stuff I have seen that outlines our defense I think from memory comes from blogs and things rather than papers like sun star telegraph mail times etc

also just because we won’t say what our defense is has not stopped people on her posting lots of details yet it seems to have stopped the media It’s a matter of public record who owns Etihad and the original settlement with UEFA and the possible timing issue and international standard around related parties as are our accounts etc yet this does not seem to get mentioned outside of blue moon you would have thought journalist could use google and go on companies house etc

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

Anyone who thinks that after winning our case hopefully. That we will get a full and frank apology from UEFA, sorry I can't see that happening.

The only thing UEFA is interested is UEFA. By that I mean the 14 clubs that make that elite group of clubs. At a guess it will be these clubs that will have officials in the boards at UEFA.

Maybe after the case, when we hopefully have won our case and then threaten to sue UEFA for millions of £'s the apology might be forth coming from them.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Anyone who thinks that after winning our case hopefully. That we will get a full and frank apology from UEFA, sorry I can't see that happening.

The only thing UEFA is interested is UEFA. By that I mean the 14 clubs that make that elite group of clubs. At a guess it will be these clubs that will have officials in the boards at UEFA.

Maybe after the case, when we hopefully have won our case and then threaten to sue UEFA for millions of £'s the apology might be forth coming from them.

Better still, maybe we can select our own representative in UEFA. I think Mike Summerbee would do a great job.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

can you point me in the direction of the bbc article ? Did it actually say much I mean saying we are saying we have done nothing wrong is not really explaining our defense. The stuff I have seen that outlines our defense I think from memory comes from blogs and things rather than papers like sun star telegraph mail times etc

also just because we won’t say what our defence is has not stopped people on her posting lots of details yet it seems to have stopped the media It’s a matter of public record who owns Etihad and the original settlement with UEFA and the possible timing issue and international standard around related parties as are our accounts etc yet this does not seem to get mentioned outside of blue moon you would have thought journalist could use google and go on companies house etc

It was the report on the six o'clock news at the end of a report explaining what we were supposed to have done and was literally one sentence long ("although Manchester City are confident they have done nothing wrong"). People on here are NOT posting details of our defence but are speculating about what our defence MIGHT be. Google wont help because City are fulfilling their obligation to confidentiality ie going to present their case only to the court.

 

[Gazza]

Better still, maybe we can select our own representative in UEFA. I think Mike Summerbee would do a great job.

I tell you we'll come here and do them over.

and we did.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

In terms of the poll, if the question was “Do you think City are guilty”, I’m sure 99% would vote no. The third of people saying City will receive a punishment are saying yes because we don’t trust the process or because we’ve been here before and we always seem to get screwed over.

Definitely some truth to that

 

[WRicko]

It was the report on the six o'clock news at the end of a report explaining what we were supposed to have done and was literally one sentence long ("although Manchester City are confident they have done nothing wrong"). People on here are NOT posting details of our defence but are speculating about what our defence MIGHT be. Google wont help because City are fulfilling their obligation to confidentiality ie going to present their case only to the court.

In other words they make us look guilt for about 5 mins and then say at the end one sentence that we deny wrong doing to which everyone non city fan says they would wouldn’t they

hardly impartial or informative. Seems we are being punished by the leaks and by the fact we are not leaking our defense

I am fairly sure that when there is a criminal case people often put there defense in public with few exceptions for example I was not there etc

People on here are using publicly available information which journalists should be reporting and could do without speaking to city and breaking any confidentiality. People posting it might be wrong in thinking it will get us off but they are not wrong in terms of the facts and it’s near impossible to imagine that it won’t be our defense that for example Etihad is not related party is not owned by the sheik was considered fair value

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

City are fulfilling their obligation to confidentiality ie going to present their case only to the court.

Absolutely the right strategy, in my opinion.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

In other words they make us look guilt for about 5 mins and then say at the end one sentence that we deny wrong doing to which everyone non city fan says they would wouldn’t they

hardly impartial or informative. Seems we are being punished by the leaks and by the fact we are not leaking our defense

I am fairly sure that when there is a criminal case people often put there defense in public with few exceptions for example I was not there etc

People on here are using publicly available information which journalists should be reporting and could do without speaking to city and breaking any confidentiality. People posting it might be wrong in thinking it will get us off but they are not wrong in terms of the facts and it’s near impossible to imagine that it won’t be our defense that for example Etihad is not related party is not owned by the sheik was considered fair value

Absolutely the right strategy, in my opinion.

The BBC will say that they reported on the information they had available and it's hard to argue with that. The news is to report what has happened and they did that. They will tell you that what impression you get is something they cannot control and is entirely up to you, but you cannot make a charge of inaccurate reporting or falsifying the facts stick and those who do tend to end up looking foolish or bigoted.

Sorriano explained to us all that he had not made any statement for 3 days after AC's decision on the advice of our lawyers and he didn't go into any detail about our evidence our our defence. Khaldoon has similarly refused to go into detail and as Lovebitesandeverything says that's absolutely the right strategy. Lord Pannick will certainly present our case better than anyone else and he won't bother presenting it to the press.

I trust our club and I think we'll win. While I doubt that we have the "smoking gun" I suspect that we have evidence which will certainly hurt UEFA and many of its leading figures. This is why I am attracted to Tolmie's theory of a deal with Ceferin.

 

[hjohn]

This might be a daft question but it’s been posted that the IC refused to consider our defence
Did we give them the evidence and they refused to consider it or did we offer it and they refused to accept it?