Uefa have said publically that it was something in the City documents, but did not elaborate. Is it a bluff? Have they misinterpreted said documents? Have we, god forbid, missed something?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
He did say before the original verdict that we would be getting a two year ban so he was obviously well briefed. He's a insufferable scouse phlegm chucker but he's been right before, just hope he's not right again.
It depends if the board at Klanfield are still in the loop?
They hacked our scouting base, what else could they have hacked and held on to?
Pep's shopping list.It depends if the board at Klanfield are still in the loop?
They hacked our scouting base, what else could they have hacked and held on to?
Worth reminding yourself of what was already settled in 2014 https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league
The idea that City go through that process, disclose documents and then find many years later (and co-incidentally shortly after Football Leaks) that UEFA comes across new documents from City that are so incriminating that they undermine the earlier settlement is simply not credible.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league
The idea that City go through that process, disclose documents and then find many years later (and co-incidentally shortly after Football Leaks) that UEFA comes across new documents from City that are so incriminating that they undermine the earlier settlement is simply not credible.
SatOnTheWall
Well-Known Member
Real documents with the actual numbers crossed out and UEFA-friendly ones written in their place in red crayon?He mentioned it a bit back on the radio that it’s our own documentation that Uefa are going to do us on.
Worth reminding yourself of what was already settled in 2014 https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league
The idea that City go through that process, disclose documents and then find many years later (and co-incidentally shortly after Football Leaks) that UEFA comes across new documents from City that are so incriminating that they undermine the earlier settlement is simply not credible.
What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.
nmc
Well-Known Member
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.
I’m sure the City legal team will have asked for forensic evidence of when the said document was produced and details of each amendment. Cases like this can be won and lost in the detail.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
As they've charged us with failure ot co-operate, then I guess they've got that. We'll see, but my understanding is that the bulk of their evidence is the Der Spiegel stuff.From the Evans article:
There has been a cloud over City’s spending since a website called Football Leaks revealed a cache of hacked emails that contained damaging allegedly internal communications that appeared to indicate that the club had flouted FFP rules. Uefa have insisted from the start that their evidence is not connected with the illegally-obtained Football Leaks material.
So what have they got?
nmc
Well-Known Member
What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.
The numbers given at the time and the numbers given now - will need to align with the numbers in the audited accounts.
I wondered this too... But then surely city wouldn't knowingly do that without thinking it would be an issue?What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.