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

[Exeter Blue I am here]

The Soriano quote is from the in-house interview he did a few days after the 2 year ban was announced. Full transcript of the interview are here.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-news-ferran-ban-17776545


The statement was fully approved by City lawyers and I think is the last official statement from the club. We all heard it at the time but good to be reminded of the key-points:

• allegations are not true, simply not true
• the owner has not put any money into the club that has not been properly declared
• we did cooperate with the process, we delivered a long list of documents and support that we believe is irrefutable evidence
• IC relied more on out of context stolen emails than all the other evidence we provided
• this seems to be less about justice and more about politics
• we went to CAS mid process because it was clear we weren;t having a fair process and speciifcally about the leaks
• Th experience with IC has been negative for us....it is also negative for them (UEFA). UEFA is much bigger than this FFP Chamber

Whilst we should take comfort from that statement, it’s what it doesn’t say that goes to the nub of the matter and continues to trouble me.

No.2 “The owner has not put any money into the club that has not been properly declared.”

UEFA’s whole argument centres not on what Sheikh Mansour has been seen to inject into the club, but rather what the hacked emails suggest he has put into Etihad in order for that money in turn to be put into the club. I don’t doubt that City’s books accurately record that Etihad, and Etihad alone, has pumped money into the club, but that isn’t what we’re being accused of.....or at least I don’t think it is.
If Ferran Soriano had added something along the lines of “nor has he (Sheikh Mansour) pumped money into Etihad (with or without the intention of that money being funnelled back to City under the guise of sponsorship)”, then I’d be whooping for joy and shouting “take that Gill you fucker”, but he (Sorriano) didn’t say anything of that nature, or at least not that I’m aware of. It may just be semantics, but as it stands, the statement he did make could be viewed as potentially disingenuous.

My opinion as to the likely outcome of this (albeit that it’s the same kind of stab in the dark as virtually everyone else’s opinion), is that we will need to actively disprove or at the very least discredit those 2 or 3 emails that referred to SM meeting the bulk of the Etihad payment and more especially the one asking how SM’s money should be routed (ie via the club first or via Etihad first). If we’ve gone into battle without that proof, then I think we’re on to a loser, because however solid CAS are reputationally, I am consumed by the nagging feeling that they won’t want to be seen to overturn a case of this profile on regulatory grounds alone

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

would city take a reduced punishment of just the fine uefa give us ???

i was thinking last night if uefa took the 2 years ban away and just a money fine would city bite the hand of uefa ? it would not clear our name but it would make sense in calling it mistakes was made by the club at the time ?

I hope not. It's win win for uefa. They get to smear us with guilt and get paid for doing it. Basically that would be extortion - a bit like the last settlement.

 

[M18CTID]

Well when Newcastle start getting the treatment we gave from those crackpot including delooney (which I believe has already started) let's see how he feels then.

The line regarding how if we win will stop clubs from growing shows just how stupid and idiotic that guy is, and how stupid and gullible those that believe that narrative are.

Plenty of Newcastle fans have sussed Delooney already. The one praising him is an exception

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

I would think that it would all depend on whether UEFA will drop all the charges. They would also after drop any impending charges a well. I just don't think that the club would except this. as it does make us look guilty.

If UEFA insist that we have to pay the fine for them dropping the 2yr ban. Then maybe the club would have to look at it. I just can't see that happening. It is about time that some club took that big bully that is called UEFA and took them to court. They cannot be the judge and the jury all at the same time.

 

[CC1]

Saw a tweet suggesting that we were 1-0 after the first day but nothing to substanitiate it. Seemed to be from one of the less hyperbolic posters but I know like with most things on twitter should be taken with a pinch of salt...

I guess that's my totally pointless contribution to this thread. Are we there yet?

No way there’s been a leak from CAS. I would say it’s complete fabrication

 

[hateutd]

No news ,good news????

 

[inchy14]

uefa is tiny dick energy .

Haha girl in front of me at the protest on Saturday in Piccadilly gardens had that on her placard about trump.

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Not one person will be sued

Correct. Fuck all will be done, as it is now.

 

[whp.blue]

I think the only way City would accept a small fine is if it was for non cooperation part of the charges. Even then we would argue we were fully justified.

 

[slbsn]

I constantly see references to "guilt", "innocence", "exoneration", "didn't do it" and people looking for definitive calls from CAS or other courts etc. These are all terms appropriate for criminal matters. In civil/commercial matters, they are decided on a balance of probabilities (not beyond reasonable doubt) nobody is "guilty" or "innocent" and parties frequently have disagreements of the outcome of the court's judgement.

Breaches of civil laws or rules are often far more finely balanced calls for courts. That is why civil matters are regularly settled outside of court. Parties don't necessarily go to the ends of the world to prove their "innocence" - in fact there is often something in the other side's case even if disputed. That's likely the case here too - the idea that City did nothing wrong at all, is wishful thinking. Even if CAS finds for City, it is not an "exoneration" necessarily.