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

[cheekybids]

I thought they never saw our full evidence because we submitted it at the last minute (probably deliberately) and they chose not to read it. At that point we had lost complete faith in the process which had been compromised by repeated leaks of sensitive financial information to our commercial rivals.
Because of these leaks we decided to effectively bypass the AC and that's why they say we didn't co-operate. The AC sanctioned us without seeing our defence. That may explain whey UEFA sources have claimed that "City had no evidence." We have plenty of evidence and I think CAS will give us a fair hearing.

As I’ve told people many times that last minute is just in time & there is nothing wrong with that. We teach people to make use of all the resources available, including time.

Now if they then didn’t have enough time, why set that deadline?

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Despite the fact that we are in the right here and being buoyed by the confidence and indignation coming from the club, in common with others, the closer we get to this, the more nervous I feel. This is going to be a very stressful time, waiting for the verdict from CAS and I wish all Blues the best through it. I just hope we all come through this in good health and pray that we get the fair hearing that clears the good name of Manchester City.

 

[johnmcfcagain]

Can we try to agree on what we all agree? For me that is -

1. Financial Fair Play (FFP) is in "restraint of trade". By that, which is a legal term as I understand, FFP unreasonably restricts the owner of a business from investing in that business.

2. Certain "elite" clubs have benefitted from their past freedom from the concept of FFP, so that they could invest in an unlimited way to procure success e.g. Liverpool under Sir John Moore (football pools empire) in the 70s and 80s and more recently United under the Glaziers by leveraging hundreds of millions of debt against the assets of that club. Thus, current FFP restrictions on investment protect the historic "elite".

3. FFP was introduced to prevent the unsustainable financing of football clubs, restrict inflated transfer fees for players and prevent clubs from financial ruin. It has failed on all counts whilst City have a sound financial basis and are not guilty of paying the most excessive fees for players.

4. A UEFA body including City's closest commercial competitors has acted as prosecutor and judge in the process.

5. UEFA has unfairly and retrospectively moved the goalposts on FFP rules.

6. UEFA has punished City for alleged contravention of one version of its rules and is now going back for a second try.

7. UEFA is guilty, at least in part, of using material obtained illegally to support its case.

8. UEFA has transgressed rules on the confidentiality of proceedings.

 

[MCC]

Lord Pannick has 6 kids. The bloke is an absolute machine.

I can see him warming up for tomorrows bout, after just waking up in his bedroom and still in his pristine white y-fronts, doing some shadow boxing with the Rocky theme tune blaring out from his ghetto blaster.

C`mon my Lord. Knock the fuckers out!

 

[blueyorkie]

Can we try to agree on what we all agree? For me that is -

1. Financial Fair Play (FFP) is in "restraint of trade". By that, which is a legal term as I understand, FFP unreasonably restricts the owner of a business from investing in that business.

2. Certain "elite" clubs have benefitted from their past freedom from the concept of FFP, so that they could invest in an unlimited way to procure success e.g. Liverpool under Sir John Moore (football pools empire) in the 70s and 80s and more recently United under the Glaziers by leveraging hundreds of millions of debt against the assets of that club. Thus, current FFP restrictions on investment protect the historic "elite".

3. FFP was introduced to prevent the unsustainable financing of football clubs, restrict inflated transfer fees for players and prevent clubs from financial ruin. It has failed on all counts whilst City have a sound financial basis and are not guilty of paying the most excessive fees for players.

4. A UEFA body including City's closest commercial competitors has acted as prosecutor and judge in the process.

5. UEFA has unfairly and retrospectively moved the goalposts on FFP rules.

6. UEFA has punished City for alleged contravention of one version of its rules and is now going back for a second try.

7. UEFA is guilty, at least in part, of using material obtained illegally to support its case.

8. UEFA has transgressed rules on the confidentiality of proceedings.

Excellent posting, however it is unlikely that our case will be based on those points, procedural & technical minutiae will be far more relevant

 

[laserblue]

That particular snake is going to have his head well and truly chopped off hopefully. He's going to learn that you don't fuck with people like Khaldoon and his bosses. The resource he's going to need access to is a very good solicitor.

Or a very good pair of running shoes.

Hopefully.

 

[KS55]

Excellent posting, however it is unlikely that our case will be based on those points, procedural & technical minutiae will be far more relevant

It will be a slugfest:
Rounds 1 to 5 Warm up: do uefa have the right to enquire into the seasons specified?
Rounds 6 to the death: Uefa evidence that we have breached ffp vs. Our evidence that we have not.

 

[Brendan110_0]

Could all be over in less than an hour if UEFA didn't follow their own rules.

 

[projectriver]

Could all be over in less than an hour if UEFA didn't follow their own rules.

Wishful thinking

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Wishful thinking

Have you ever had a brief that you were 100% certain you would win? The follow up question is did you win it?

I would imagine this is quite rare as there is absolutely no certainty in these matters, which is why I haven't been entirely convinced by the bullishness expressed by the club.