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

[TedofChume]

The first sentence was CAS saying this statement from City had validity "[City] argued that it should not be prevented from relying on these documents because UEFA chose not to disclose the existence of such evidence until after the deadlines for MCFC to file its submissions with the CAS had passed."

I get it now, thanks.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

With the greatest respect to our resident legal eagles, Pannick will take the most profitable route for himself.

It is , after all , the second oldest profession.

Prostitution the 3rd?

And bent refs for Utd and the dippers the 1st?

 

[hihosilva]

Do we have a running commentary next week or is total hush hush

 

[seafordblue]

Audit evidence will have wanted to see the payments relating to that contract came into the company and the legal contract. Where Etihad get the cash from is not City's auditor's concern assuming the legal contract and obligation is clear. Remember, in any event consideration of each of the sponsor contracts was part of the settlement in 2014.

Where Etihad got the cash from may not be City’s auditors concern and will not show in City’s accounts.

But this is the crux of the issue. The emails suggest Etihad were funded by City. So where did Etihad get the cash from?

Surely, it’s in our interests to present Etihad’s audited accounts as evidence that their income has come from legit sources and does not show any payment from ADUG or Sheik Monsour.

However, and I’m sure this has been linked to early on in this thread before, but is this part of UEFAs case?

http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I know this is a bit unfair, but crikey what a difference a month makes.

Getting a bit nervous TH?

Not really mate, but we are all now emotionally invested in the outcome, so fear of the unknown is natural.

City wanting exoneration and others still refusing to believe our innocence even if we do win, are two very different things.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Theres also a difference between "we will accept nothing but total exoneration" and pragmatism lads, we'll never be exonerated anyway.

I always believe Tolmie posts what he's heard or thinks on good faith, but I did think it was a bit funny that he thought too many people had a vision of a glorious victory given his previous bullish comments, celebratory hall and oates videos etc. were a not insignificant part of creating that expectation in the thread.

Surely winning is a glorious victory?

I just haven't subscribed to the theory of dead bodies everywhere and us being cleared in the court of public opinion.

The pragmatism aspect for fans who want their pound of flesh.

There is good reason for bullish postings, as also stated in the thread.

 

[pudge]

Theres also a difference between "we will accept nothing but total exoneration" and pragmatism lads, we'll never be exonerated anyway.

I always believe Tolmie posts what he's heard or thinks on good faith, but I did think it was a bit funny that he thought too many people had a vision of a glorious victory given his previous bullish comments, celebratory hall and oates videos etc. were a not insignificant part of creating that expectation in the thread.

Full exoneration, legally.

Do you think we'll ever be seen as above board and exonerated by bitter rival fans and executives? Not a chance.

We'll be seen as the OJ Simpson of football no doubt. Well, real football. Only we'll actually be innocent.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Full exoneration, legally.

Do you think we'll ever be seen as above board and exonerated by bitter rival fans and executives? Not a chance.

We'll be seen as the OJ Simpson of football no doubt. Well, real football. Only we'll actually be innocent.

Well that was my issue with Tolmie's post cos it's a poor analogy if we're innocent.

OJ being guilty isn't partisanship, whereas rags and dippers being bitter is. Fans I know outside of those groups don't give a toss or see it for what it is and hate both the rags and dippers far more than us.

 

[nmc]

You are Lord Pannick and I claim my prize ;-)

That section 63 scope document is an Ace

scoping document produced after the investigation!

 

[samarasra]

Where Etihad got the cash from may not be City’s auditors concern and will not show in City’s accounts.

But this is the crux of the issue. The emails suggest Etihad were funded by City. So where did Etihad get the cash from?

Surely, it’s in our interests to present Etihad’s audited accounts as evidence that their income has come from legit sources and does not show any payment from ADUG or Sheik Monsour.

However, and I’m sure this has been linked to early on in this thread before, but is this part of UEFAs case?

http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Etihad publishes its accounts annually and UEFA have the same access to them and any public debate on them just as you or I have. They are not City's accounts and City have no authority to be aware of or provide unpublished background information on Etihad's affairs.