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

[SilverFox2]

It's still a very dubious line to take, and one that given the initial claim about it being from UEFA sources City will be all over like a rash. There aren't defined penalties here, it's not like points on your driving licence. So any suggestion whatever about the level of punishment BEFORE guilt has been established is going to be pounced on by the lawyers as indicative of a corrupt process.

It's not the media who have necessarily done wrong here, because I can't see for a second that this original article is made up. It will have been sourced. But the implication that punishment has been meted out before the process is complete is going to go down like a cup of warm sick at any court hearing.

Agree with what you say, akin to jurors saying they are going to vote for a certain punishment if the rest find guilty as charged when they deliver their verdict.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

SKY still have "City facing Champions League Ban".

Is that not rather like saying that someone on trial is "facing prison", and therefore influencing opinion without any facts?

That's just Sky tabloid level crap. It's what they do.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

What the fuck is he on about, the dick

He said that it was odd that City wouldn't comment yesterday - they obviously referred him to the previous statement. Now his piece has been published, they've changed their approach.

 

[Parisian]

Not dismissing what that Tariq geezer was tweeting but it seems weird that UEFA would tweet that yesterday if they were intending to ban us. While it's concerning that there appears to be some information that has been leaked regarding the investigation, Tariq's tweets don't seem as cut and dried as the leaked stuff ahead of our 2014 sanction. As someone else said, they're a bit all over the place, plus he has a clear swipe at UEFA's relationship with PSG too

I have seen that UEFA page posting things in the same vein for PSG while we were at risk with FFP rulings.

I think this page account is not related at all with the FFP division since they post their decisions in another way.

Like this page is just for PR of UCL, showing stars, big clubs, great goals and skills etc.
The FFP ICFC is the annoying brother that publishes stern statement.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I posted earlier today that I thought UEFA would be far better letting sleeping dogs lie but it appears that they no longer have that option. The NYT story has certainly taken all attention off City's achievements this season in a week in which they have won the title and go for the FA cup. The issue now is whether this story is totally without foundation and concocted by a reporter from motives which are distinctly malicious. If this is the case his career could be nearing its end or his paper could face serious problems. Or the issue could be that of the competence of UEFA to act as the governing body of European football and in particular of the CFCBIC to carry out its responsibilities in enforcing the very controversial FFP regulations. The suspicion that a member of the IC is informing a reporter of its decisions/recommendations while investigations are in process and confidential is a potentially terminal blow to the integrity of a body already vulnerable at the very least on questions of conflict of interest. UEFA may have no alternative but to say they have investigated, found no evidence of any wrongdoing and pray that the NYT cannot provide the name of a mole.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Would the New York Times be the same company that is the biggest shareholder in Liverpool?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...t-shareholder-in-Liverpool-football-club.html

 

[doobyedoobye]

I posted earlier today that I thought UEFA would be far better letting sleeping dogs lie but it appears that they no longer have that option. The NYT story has certainly taken all attention off City's achievements this season in a week in which they have won the title and go for the FA cup. The issue now is whether this story is totally without foundation and concocted by a reporter from motives which are distinctly malicious. If this is the case his career could be nearing its end or his paper could face serious problems. Or the issue could be that of the competence of UEFA to act as the governing body of European football and in particular of the CFCBIC to carry out its responsibilities in enforcing the very controversial FFP regulations. The suspicion that a member of the IC is informing a reporter of its decisions/recommendations while investigations are in process and confidential is a potentially terminal blow to the integrity of a body already vulnerable at the very least on questions of conflict of interest. UEFA may have no alternative but to say they have investigated, found no evidence of any wrongdoing and pray that the NYT cannot provide the name of a mole.

Does the NYT have to provide the name of the mole to anyone?

 

[rnblade]

I think it’s probably already been said, but it’s like the police commenting on a murder case and saying they’re pushing for the death penalty, before any evidence has been put before the court.
I hope our legal team take these cünts to the cleaners.
The club need to start taking a tougher stance on these media cünts.
The day after we won the PL as well, a bit too sneaky.
I’m sure we all know the culprits/instigators.
I wonder what would happen if they imposed FFP in F1. ???

 

[route46]

£40m a season isn't an inflated sponsor, it is more then a fair deal for Etihad...
Even if the sheikh is propping up the deal it is still fair value which is allowed,where is the problem?

 

[Rolee]

The UEFA investigation may be into the past, or present. Either way it doesn't make too much sense.

Some clubs and national FAs have been funded by Bosch, Mercedes, Deutsche Bank and VW. How can they claim the high ground? Although some have battled bitter history and have defeated enemies time and time again.

Top versus Runners-Up Trophy winners on the money front makes me laugh. Throw in them lot over the Manchester border for comparison too. Footballs backer will always have grey and possibly rainbow-shaded areas with colour coded charts of uncertainty. Who are we to judge the rights and wrongs of a sport that creates social evils, media unjust and headlines? It's entertainment like every other industry of 'things people watch to escape real life'. Surely, through talking an debating we'll realise that at the end of the day, you can buy more players, buy more seats, buy more everything to get that margin of fine gains that has been in every sport since the dawn of time. The clean as a whistle UEFA and FIFA know how it goes. They must be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them. Instead of banning, or retrospective action, tidy the bloody rules up and make things more transparent. Then, us, the hard-working paying masses can get on and enjoy the bloody game every Saturday afternoon, I mean, whenever TV dictates.

Kit supplier: Nike, UK£72 million (US$108 million) signed 2013, expires 2019 [£12 million a season] speculation that these numbers may be fabricated
Main sponsor: Etihad Airways, UK£400 million (US$652 million) signed 2011, expires 2021 [£40 million a season] speculation that these numbers may be fabricated
Sleeve sponsor: Nexen Tire, UK£10 million (US$12.9 million) per season, length unreported [£10 million a season] speculation that these numbers may be fabricated
Deals since 2017/18: Turtle Beach, Xylem, PAK Lighting, Marathonbet, AvaTrade, SeatGeek, Nexon, Tinder [loose morales?], Barclays [questionable], Amazon [bye, bye local traders], Gatorade, Khmer Beverages , Mundipharma, Rexona [sure?] and a whole host more. speculation that these numbers may be fabricated

Kit supplier: New Balance (Trump supporter and owned by club owner John Henry's close friend], UK£300 million (US$390 million), signed 2012, expires 2019 [£42.8 million a season* *once a record figure holder in 2012/13]
Main sponsor: Standard Chartered, UK£160 million (US$236.1 million), renewal signed 2018, expires 2023 [£32 million a season]
Sleeve sponsor: Western Union, UK£25 million (US$32.1 million), signed 2017, expires 2022 [£5 million a season]
Major deals since 2017/18: Standard Chartered [squeaky clean with no state backing in the middle east at all and certainly no cartel money in any accounts], Wireless Infrastructure Group, Petro-Canada Lubricants,
Tibet Water (Chinese-owned) actually ended.

Kit supplier: Adidas, UK £750 million (US$$1.3 billion), signed 2016, expires 2026 [£75 million a season]
Main sponsor: General Motors, UK£371 million (US$559 million), signed 2012, expires 2021 [£41 million a season]
Sleeve sponsor: Kohler, UK£20 million (US$27.5 million) per season, length unreported [£20 million a season]
Major deals since start of 2017/18: Chivas, MoPlay, Melitta, Kohler, Belgium FA [an actual country's association], MLILY, PingAn Bank, Cho-A Pharm, Science in Sport, General Sports Authority of Saudi Arabia

Then compare full gates, trophies since the Premier League's inception, a twenty year sponsorship portfolio, global shirts sales, domestic TV coverage and overseas coverage, global marketing, ambition to grow the foreign market, invitations to high-value friendly competitions, added TV sales etc, pioneering eSports etc, TV documentaries... domestic and overseas investment potential.

Another thing is how do these sponsorship deals come about, bidding, tendering, slipping your mate at a good brand some plum deal and probably a spot of tax evasion.

Think about where that club invests, how their profits are used and whether they have passed the FA's due diligence test of new club owners. Perhaps, UEFA could up the ante and set higher standards. FIFA could be involved too. It might affect them. Fit and proper ownership could then be extended to all sponsorship deals - with clubs declaring their fully visible statements to a neutral panel, or one that accounts for UEFA member associations. Tome to end the witch hunts and go on about setting a model example. Because every piece of crap that enters a paper, with "a source said this" and "an un-named official said that" ruins certain fans and gives them a weak and annoying response. Where we you when we were s4!t?

Also, how do fans of Liverpool or ManUre view FFP and how do their club frameworks see the knock on effect? Live every news article, we can all find a source here and there, but it doesn't mean much.

"Sorry John,yes you want to make money,and want us to be an attractive catch for when the people you are slating at citeh and Chavski comes a knocking to buy your investment from you....or would you decline such offers because your such a staunch supporter of FFP?"

Also, this has a source:
'Manchester City FC is fully cooperating in good faith with the CFCB IC's ongoing investigation.

'In doing so the club is reliant on both the CFCB IC's independence and commitment to due process; and on UEFA's commitment of the 7th of March that it '….will make no further comment on the matter while the investigation is ongoing'.

On the Liverpool kit supplier, more specifically it's Warrior Sports, a New Balance subsidiary which has investors from the Saudi royal family

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...stment-agreement-announced-liverpool-12687560