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

[andyhinch]

And not enough doctors imo. Where are they when you need them?

Do you have a prognosis for this case yet ?

 

[slbsn]

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.

They won't have faked the document or its date. This case won't be turning on details like this

 

[slbsn]

I wondered this too... But then surely city wouldn't knowingly do that without thinking it would be an issue?

No I don't think so

 

[nmc]

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.

Failure to cooperate can probably be justified on the basis that UEFA were leaking stuff left right and centre and many journalists were reporting what our punishment was going to be before the process was complete. Of course journalists can get lucky but what’s the odds of them all guessing the same or similar punishment ? In a legal exchange UEFA will have to square their allegations of non-cooperation with our own assertion that the IC didn’t consider our evidence.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

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.

In this scenario, there is simply no way City would be as bullish in their public proclamations as they have been.

If we knew what was included in our submissions first time round, and subsequently UEFA asked us to review specific docs which we knew contradicted the originals - and then we provided said docs as requested - there is simply no way our Chairman and CEO would go on public record at the volumes they have since UEFA's charge saying their accusations are entirely baseless, and we have irrefutable proof of our innocence. These guys aren't idiots.

 

[slbsn]

Failure to cooperate can probably be justified on the basis that UEFA were leaking stuff left right and centre and many journalists were reporting what our punishment was going to be before the process was complete. Of course journalists can get lucky but what’s the odds of them all guessing the same or similar punishment ? In a legal exchange UEFA will have to square their allegations of non-cooperation with our own assertion that the IC didn’t consider our evidence.

Yes, the no-cooperation charge is a) almost certainly not supportable b) wouldn't give rise to a proper sanction if the underlying charge had no merit.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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.

I suspect this info from Evans is just part of the UEFA disinformation campaign and is probably out-of-date. It all looks a bit desperate to me. I suspect Evans got this information along the lines of a throwaway comment from his source along the lines of: Evans asks: "So what evidence have you got?" reply: "It's not just about the Der Spiegel stuff you know."
There have been leaks from some of those in UEFA or those close to people in UEFA throughout the entire process. They have come from the anti-City faction within UEFA and have been amplified privately to the media by senior people from our commercial rivals. Some of those leaks have been accurate and some of them have been "wishful thinking."
I actually don't blame people like Evans for reporting this leaked information but he is only telling one side of the story.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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?

Doesn't make sense, I'd assume we already know what Uefa's entire case is against us?

 

[nmc]

Thought the Evans article was decent. Clearly getting nothing out of UEFA and he's right about how important it is and the stakes.

I've never seen this as boldly stated "Uefa have insisted from the start that their evidence is not connected with the illegally-obtained Football Leaks material." It remains a mystery what it IS connected with if not those emails.

This is also important "Although the court schedule does not allow enough time for proper, forensic cross-examination of witnesses – a factor that may suit the club – the case will be treated with proper seriousness." If UEFA can't prove their case by inference on what witnesses say, it leaves them having to prove the case on documents. As I have said many times (as has the club), how do you overcome an audited set of accounts without even having witnesses to cross examine.

That second paragraph almost certainly contradicts UEFAs comments about why they were reopening the investigation. They wholly tied it to the reports in the press.

 

[Newman Noggs]

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.

No they don't. It then becomes a question of which are more reliable, the documents produced by the subject of the enquiry or some hacked emails which have passed through several sets of hands.

Any reasonable Court would give credence to documents with evidenced provenance. Something impossible in the case of the Der Spiegel documents.

Just realised you meant two documents submitted by the club showing different things. Possible at a stretch but highly unlikely.