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

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

?

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  1. Two-year ban upheld

    164 vote(s)
    11.8%
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    419 vote(s)
    30.2%
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    739 vote(s)
    53.3%
  4. Other

    64 vote(s)
    4.6%
  1. jaigurugoat

    jaigurugoat

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2011
    Messages:
    3,202
    There's no evidence we didn't assassinate JFK, plan the September 11th the attacks or genetically engineer the coronavirus so we must be guilty of all those too.
     
  2. nmc

    nmc

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    14,076
    Location:
    Manchester
    That is almost certainly a Rick Parry quote.
     
    lancs blue and bobbyowenquiff like this.
  3. Ancient Citizen

    Ancient Citizen

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2009
    Messages:
    13,601
    If we do prevail at CAS, they can think or believe what they like, for me.
    Plus, if we do, and this FFP shit gets scrapped. or watered down, so that clubs
    can attract investment and spend it how they like, I hope we blow the whole shower of them out
    of the water. After all these years, it's still hard to comprehend how such a scandalous rule
    that allows for debt, but penalises investment ever came into force, no business on earth
    operates like this.
     
    Nooks, ZanteWeatherman, Murph and 3 others like this.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. KS55

    KS55

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2016
    Messages:
    6,679
    Where a process such as this is conducted behind closed doors, we should suspect that it is being manipulated to the authority's advantage. Justice should be seen to be done.
     
  5. petrusha

    petrusha

    Joined:
    6 Aug 2011
    Messages:
    3,593
    Location:
    Sportswashing for Vladimir Putin
    I'm pretty sure that it's an old quote the FT included in a piece when the ban was imposed. I remember seeing it before. One point to note is that the CAS proceedings are a de novo consideration of the case, so if UEFA demanded evidence of a specific nature or in a particular form from City and we wanted to provide different evidence, that might have been construed by the AC as not having evidence of our innocence and not cooperating with the UEFA investigation. However, we can assert any such evidence there may be in our appeal to the CAS. Speculation, of course, but also an illustration that the UEFA source's apparent confidence just might be misplaced.

    Ever since the AC handed down its verdict, I've considered that comments from UEFA sources such as the one the FT has cited today constitute an attempt to build, in advance of the CAS proceedings, a narrative to push the idea that City are guilty and if we prevail, we will have done so merely through exploiting a technicality. I saw the Tony Evans piece the other day in very much a similar light.

    I did, on Twitter yesterday, comment on Evans's allegation that UEFA's crucial evidence comes from materials supplied by MCFC. I noted that, should UEFA's charges against City be proved before the neutral CAS tribunal, the club's audited accounts are falsified and it was interesting that MCFC should have provided UEFA with evidence showing that senior officers at MCFC have undertaken actions that constitute a serious criminal offence potentially punishable by several years' imprisonment*. Evans studiously offered no response, though he must have seen my tweet as he replied to others in the same thread.

    * - I'm led, by persons with more knowledge in this area than I have, to believe that a prosecution of MCFC directors for false accounting is highly unlikely as it wouldn't be viewed as being in the public interest. Nonetheless, the manipulation of our income in order for MCFC to avoid a CL ban and thus benefit from large sums of CL revenue to the detriment of other clubs who were denied participation as a result of our dishonesty entails actions constituting a pretty exact fit for the body of the offence contemplated by section 17 of the Theft Act 1968.
     
    FrankSwift1 and SilverFox2 like this.
  6. Bodicoteblue

    Bodicoteblue

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2012
    Messages:
    3,087
    ‘Cave in’ is an interesting phrase,
    To my mind, it clearly implies that City are using threatening and/or bullying tactics, and since we apparently have ‘no evidence at all’ this will explain why and how we may win this appeal.
     
    Listerfiend likes this.
  7. journolud

    journolud

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Messages:
    4,862
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    Am with you there but are you absolutely sure you’re entirely rational on all other matters? ;-)
     
    FrankSwift1 likes this.
  8. deano ou812

    deano ou812

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2009
    Messages:
    19,412
    Location:
    In the dugout....
    Hmmm,who would of thought it couple of days before the CAS hearing and certain media start shit stirring again..
     
    Withnail and tolmie's hairdoo like this.
  9. bobbyowenquiff

    bobbyowenquiff

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2007
    Messages:
    3,661
    Location:
    Lancashire
    It was a really lazy article with quotes from anonymous sources and the the usual fake sportswashing narrative. It's depressing that even prestigious organisations like the FT can't be bothered to do more than a cut-and-paste job on what they themselves called "a landmark case" for sport.
    The anonymous quote deriding City's evidence was similar in tone to that used on Friday by Tony Evans. So it looks like Rick Parry (a man with close knowledge of the investigation process) is now the go-to anonymous rent-a-quote for a lot of the media pack. That tells you everything.
     
    wayneoski and fiddlesticksblue like this.
  10. projectriver

    projectriver

    Joined:
    30 May 2007
    Messages:
    807
    Whilst its possible that the SFO would conclude that it was not in the public interest, if the FRC (say) concluded City's accounts were false and prepared negligently or worse, the idea that the SFO wouldn't pursue City's directors because of public interest seems fanciful to me. A high profile situation of a PL club would be absolutely in the public interest to pursue - in fact its hard to imagine a situation more in the public interest. In any event, concluding a matter was not in the public interest to pursue could take a very long time - many years in fact. Many years of it hanging over the individuals and the club (ie the company) itself (the company can also be prosecuted as you will know).

    I'm not suggesting this is how it pans out, but much much stranger things have happened. This situation still has plenty of potential to catch fire.
     
    Rosler's Mullet and petrusha like this.

Share This Page