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

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That FT piece is absolutely laughable, it's even beyond puff.

Attempting to set the scene for next week, it hangs the entire article on who is representing both sides on the legal fronts of which, we already knew the names on the City side.

Any decent sub editor would have been on the phone to the writers highlighting a very clear contradiction.

They have quoted a supposed informed Uefa source saying City have no evidence.

How the fuck would Uefa know that already when it hasn't even been presented at CAS!!

If anything, it's quite a lazy City bingo card, ticking off the usual stereotypes, interspersed with a rent-a-quote Daniel Geey and the oxygen thief from whatever shitty favela he now occupies.

I see it hedges its bets though, already setting the scene that City will only have got off because Uefa caved in, therefore reinforcing the narrative that we are still guilty.

 

[SilverFox2]

That FT piece is absolutely laughable, it's even beyond puff.

Attempting to set the scene for next week, it hangs the entire article on who is representing both sides on the legal fronts of which, we already knew the names on the City side.

Any decent sub editor would have been on the phone to the writers highlighting a very clear contradiction.

They have quoted a supposed informed Uefa source saying City have no evidence.

How the fuck would Uefa know that already when it hasn't even been presented at CAS!!

If anything, it's quite a lazy City bingo card, ticking off the usual stereotypes, interspersed with a rent-a-quote Daniel Geey and the oxygen thief from whatever shitty favela he now occupies.

I see it hedges its bets though, already setting the scene that City will only have got off because Uefa caved in, therefore reinforcing the narrative that we are still guilty.

Does the phrase "cave in" refer to finding a technicality?
If so does the evidence then have no bearing on the case so that we get a result and they can claim our lasting guilt?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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.

You make a good point. The one thing that usually spurs the Serious Fraud Office into action is political pressure and media publicity. The "public interest" argument can always be twisted any way the authorities want to. That said I do think the SFO would be crazy to take on any case in the murky world of football.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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.

I’m guessing the reason it wouldn’t be in the public interest is because the tax man hasn’t been cheated out of any money. He’s gained, if anything.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I’m guessing the reason it wouldn’t be in the public interest is because the tax man hasn’t been cheated out of any money. He’s gained, if anything.

You believe that we don't have a 'secret' bank account in the Cayman Islands to reduce the tax bill? Why not? Everyone else has and nobody says anything.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

This is why I voted 'other'. I think we'll be found innocent but it will be reported as guilty but for a technicality. Very much 'got off' rather than acquitted. Too many sports writers have set their stalls out on our guilt for it to be otherwise.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Genuinely think the two year ban will be upheld, despite the bravado. Anything less than that will be a big bonus for me.

Anything less and we would still be facing Premier League sanctions and all that entails.

You really think the other 19 clubs would sit on their hands if we got a one year ban instead of two?

Guilty would be guilty, regardless of a reduced sentence.

People need to understand the gravity of this case, it is all or nothing.

City would be sent into the wilderness for years by a guilty verdict, putting an official stamp on deligitimising every trophy we have won.

That would certainly be in the interim, as we got to the highest courts in the land.

The damage would already been done though.

 

[Centurions]

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...

Yep, back on 18th of February.

https://www.ft.com/content/c8e25054-519a-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1

That's just lazy journalism.

 

[dickie davies]

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.

It doesn't seem to be in the public I interest that one PL club has hacked into another one's computer systems and the punishment for the theft of information is potentially five years in prison

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/hacking-of-computers/

 

[Tb1981]

That FT piece is absolutely laughable, it's even beyond puff.

Attempting to set the scene for next week, it hangs the entire article on who is representing both sides on the legal fronts of which, we already knew the names on the City side.

Any decent sub editor would have been on the phone to the writers highlighting a very clear contradiction.

They have quoted a supposed informed Uefa source saying City have no evidence.

How the fuck would Uefa know that already when it hasn't even been presented at CAS!!

If anything, it's quite a lazy City bingo card, ticking off the usual stereotypes, interspersed with a rent-a-quote Daniel Geey and the oxygen thief from whatever shitty favela he now occupies.

I see it hedges its bets though, already setting the scene that City will only have got off because Uefa caved in, therefore reinforcing the narrative that we are still guilty.

No evidence then what would they need to cave in for?