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

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I just don't subscribe to a possible theory that Agnelli is the puppet master in all of this.

And, if he is, then Abu Dhabi's business dealings with the family will ensure at the very least, who they need to have our eyes trained on.

For me, this is about clubs in England with most to lose, coupled with a Bavarian sense of entitlement.

Khaldoon pretty much said as much when he warned clubs in England to be careful which side they take.

Well we'll see, we know Agnelli's beliefs so the next month will reveal just where rhe pawns are positioned.

The trouble at home has ramped up significantly so whilst UEFA have our attention we can't ignore we have pressing issues to resolve here, warnings or not.

 

[LucahArchie10]

I have said from day 1 Arsenal, UTD & Liveypool especially in the last 5 years but100% Wenger driven & Daid Gill

Add PSG owner & Bayern fucking Munich we have the lot.

Barca have always chipped in but it's the above whos fucked us from Day 1

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

You can only work with the material you're given, you only have to watch Four Year Plan for an indication of the shambles QPR have been for the past decade.

Good shout, I watched it a few years ago and it had shades of how badly City used to be run. We've seen some volatile Italians in the PL eg Paulo de Canio or Antonio Conte but watching Flavio Briatore as the chairman of QPR during Four Year Plan is another level. A chairman needs to be professional and make clear headed decisions but he gets even more worked up than I have at times watching City.

 

[warringtonblue]

No legal knowledge with me but I seem to recall that no action taken against Liverpool in connection with their hacking of City because it was outside the 5 year ruling. I know its the FA but if it was anything other than when the offences took place and they did not have knowledge of it they would not mention 5 years or do I misunderstand the significance?

I think the fact that we accepted a settlement prevented any further action

 

[nmc]

No I don't think so. I think that only means that if the deadline expires on official holidays or weekends, or between 20/12 and 5/1. So if the deadline was due to expire on 24/12, it doesn't actually expire until 6/1, not that they stop counting full stop, even if the deadline expires on a working Wednesday in March.

But you've saved me looking that up.

1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier.

But what "decision" are they referring to? The sanctions document was published on 16th May iirc. But we had been talking to UEFA for some time before that. Presumably then, we'd been notified that we were in breach weeks or even months beforehand and we were arguing about the punishment rather than the FFP failure itself. Technically, you could argue we were in breach once UEFA issued its revised toolkit, or once we submitted our 2013 accounts, or once we submitted whatever documents we needed to submit for licensing purposes to the licensor and thence to UEFA. Someone, at some point prior to May 16th, nust have formally notified us to say "Hello. Is that Manchester City? This is UEFA and you're officially in breach of FFP."

I'd be arguing that's the date that starts the 5-year clock ticking.

For legal purposes UEFA must have formally written to us and stated they had a problem or concerns. I’m guessing that must have been in 2013. City must have a letter or email that kicks off the process. Can’t see how UEFA could argue another date.

 

[SilverFox2]

I think the fact that we accepted a settlement prevented any further action

You may be right but I'm sure the 5 year rule was mentioned as a reason.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

No legal knowledge with me but I seem to recall that no action taken against Liverpool in connection with their hacking of City because it was outside the 5 year ruling. I know its the FA but if it was anything other than when the offences took place and they did not have knowledge of it they would not mention 5 years or do I misunderstand the significance?

I don't think the FA quoted five years, just that it was a lengthy period of time.

The five years is written into UEFA financial investigations.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

When the time comes for CAS to deliver their verdict. When they say we are in the clear (hopefully). I am expecting UEFA to come back again with some more charges of a different kind.

We all know that UEFA have got it in for us. It all goes back to when we turned out a few seconds late after half -time, and got fined more than a team shows finds were singing racist songs to the opposing team

 

[117 M34]

Better call Saul!

Harvey Specter would be better

 

[denislawsbackheel]

There is no statute of limitations in English law so there is no 5 year rule to bind the FA.