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

[55yr old teenager]

In short no. They have found us guilty and sent us the details of their decision - which have remained confidential. They can’t really pitch up at CAS and start introducing new evidence. So the club and our legal team will know what UEFA do or perhaps more importantly don’t have.

Thanks for that nmc

 

[Newman Noggs]

Yes I have read it. It merely says "these two documents together could be relevant." Thats all. "Could be relevant".

That to me sounds like they went on a fishing expedition, hence why City didn't 'co-operate' as they potentially said give us access to everything including all emails rather than we'll need to see the approval documents for the following. This was done at short notice, City provided a document which apparently wasn't even looked at and it was then passed up the ladder due to time.

This is the point. A scoping document is integral to every investigation for a number of reasons one of which is to show that it isn't just a "fishing expedition". The fact that we asked for disclosure of the complete file which UEFA confirmed that they had given to us and then, presumably after we asked why there was no scoping document, UEFA produced one carries implications.

Either a) it was a "mistake" which is interesting because they would have to explain such an omission, hinting at incompetence, b) it was deliberately witheld because they didn't want us to see it or c) it didn't exist at the time we asked for it and was created afterwards. b) is suspicious and c) is fraudulent.

I doubt we'd ever be in a position to prove b) or c) but either way, it doesn't look great for UEFA because the best case scenario is serious ineptitude. It also muddies the waters as regards our duty and/or ability to co-operate with the enquiry.

 

[KS55]

This is the point. A scoping document is integral to every investigation for a number of reasons one of which is to show that it isn't just a "fishing expedition". The fact that we asked for disclosure of the complete file which UEFA confirmed that they had given to us and then, presumably after we asked why there was no scoping document, UEFA produced one carries implications.

Either a) it was a "mistake" which is interesting because they would have to explain such an omission, hinting at incompetence, b) it was deliberately witheld because they didn't want us to see it or c) it didn't exist at the time we asked for it and was created afterwards. b) is suspicious and c) is fraudulent.

I doubt we'd ever be in a position to prove b) or c) but either way, it doesn't look great for UEFA because the best case scenario is serious ineptitude. It also muddies the waters as regards our duty and/or ability to co-operate with the enquiry.

That whole issue seems odd. Do the IC normally call for a forensic audit? Have they a duty to do so? The timescale would make that very difficult to achieve. Was such an audit completed?
My bet is (c) above, the IC hoping to get away with no audit.

 

[shevtheblue]

Tony Evans has written an article in the Independent this morning, literally wanking into his socks about the prospect of City missing out. For a guy who compares anything and everything with Liverpool, be it an earthquake where thousands have died to Hillsborough, or the BLM protests to that magical night in Istanbul (he didn't actually, but you get the drift), he's doing a great job hiding that hes a scouse ****.

 

[Citizen Green]

Tony Evans has written an article in the Independent this morning, literally wanking into his socks about the prospect of City missing out. For a guy who compares anything and everything with Liverpool, be it an earthquake where thousands have died to Hillsborough, or the BLM protests to that magical night in Istanbul (he didn't actually, but you get the drift), he's doing a great job hiding that hes a scouse ****.

Hardly the most neutral of sources

 

[waspish]

Tony Evans has written an article in the Independent this morning, literally wanking into his socks about the prospect of City missing out. For a guy who compares anything and everything with Liverpool, be it an earthquake where thousands have died to Hillsborough, or the BLM protests to that magical night in Istanbul (he didn't actually, but you get the drift), he's doing a great job hiding that hes a scouse ****.

The man's a clown. If we get off he will come up with a "we got away with it" article!

 

[KS55]

Hardly the most neutral of sources

He's going to be very disappointed when we are cleared. After that, he'd better mind his defamation.

 

[Gazza]

The man's a clown. If we get off he will come up with a "we got away with it" article!

That's when you hope the writs will start.

 

[Newman Noggs]

That whole issue seems odd. Do the IC normally call for a forensic audit? Have they a duty to do so? The timescale would make that very difficult to achieve. Was such an audit completed?
My bet is (c) above, the IC hoping to get away with no audit.

An audit and an investigation are two different things although an audit can form part of an investigation. I think the two terms are getting confused.

A scoping document in terms of an investigation would set out the parameters of the investigation showing areas of focus. In this sort of enquiry and given the time pressures, you'd expect those areas to be fairly tightly defined especially as the leaked emails are supposed to illustrate specific mischief.

The scoping document, in itself, may be insignificant. It's UEFA's failure to produce it that may be symptomatic of the way the investigation was conducted. How much weight CAS would place on that depends on the context in which we have introduced the said documents.

 

[KS55]

An audit and an investigation are two different things although an audit can form part of an investigation. I think the two terms are getting confused.

A scoping document in terms of an investigation would set out the parameters of the investigation showing areas of focus. In this sort of enquiry and given the time pressures, you'd expect those areas to be fairly tightly defined especially as the leaked emails are supposed to illustrate specific mischief.

The scoping document, in itself, may be insignificant. It's UEFA's failure to produce it that may be symptomatic of the way the investigation was conducted. How much weight CAS would place on that depends on the context in which we have introduced the said documents.

I was thinking that the scoping document was directed towards the audit rather than the whole investigation. My misunderstanding. If it was supposed to cover the whole investigation, failure to produce it is even worse. What are you looking into, Uefa? Er.....Can't say really.