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

[KS55]

Agreed. It seems a bit fanciful that City, emboldened by a victory in the courts, would start looking to exact revenge on those who have slighted us in the past. All that matters is getting the ban overturned, not settling old scores.

Even if it were a good idea to sue the press, which it rarely is, our principals are inclined to be non litigous.

 

[skivitheblue9320]

Agreed. It seems a bit fanciful that City, emboldened by a victory in the courts, would start looking to exact revenge on those who have slighted us in the past. All that matters is getting the ban overturned, not settling old scores.

As my old gumba, Don Vito would say, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”!

 

[Champions again in 2012]

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.

I might be wrong but I think some of this is driven by the club’s assertion that these allegations are 'just not true' along with the statements that the Der Spiegel email excerpts are taken out of context etc. I think as a result a lot of people think the club are looking for CAS to say UEFA called it wrong and we have no case to answer.

 

[Nellies left peg]

Well according to some we have a certain plan of offensive comeback against a certain scouse club. The covid pandemic stopped it being ran as it would not be appropriate.

So it will be interesting to see it come to fruition when possible

Would love to see it but won't be holding my breath.

 

[KS55]

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.

I think most are aware that you are correct technically, but it is easier to type 'we are innocent' than 'we have breached no ffp regulations'. Besides, what with the attitudes of both the press and Uefa, it feels like a criminal trial to us!
#City are innocent ok.

 

[BillyShears]

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.

In your view, judging by the number of 'leaks' that have come from UEFA with regards this case, had City approached UEFA over the weekend to try and settle this, and UEFA had refused, could you imagine UEFA that leaking to the media?

 

[Scottish Cityzen]

Agreed. It seems a bit fanciful that City, emboldened by a victory in the courts, would start looking to exact revenge on those who have slighted us in the past. All that matters is getting the ban overturned, not settling old scores.

Which is fair enough if the usual suspects in the media accept the outcome and move away from their current narrative.

If we have a clean slate we can’t have the continued sniping and undermining of the club, and I’d expect them to act if it does.

 

[bluemanchester]

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

The part that makes me think City will be cleared is that Der Speigal or others have blacked out parts of the emails. If the blacked out parts would prove beyond doubt that City did what they are accused of they would have been printed in full, of that I have no doubt.

 

[slbsn]

In your view, judging by the number of 'leaks' that have come from UEFA with regards this case, had City approached UEFA over the weekend to try and settle this, and UEFA had refused, could you imagine UEFA that leaking to the media?

One thing they definitively would have been really careful NOT to leak would have been what would have been known as "without prejudice" (WP) discussions to settle. Such discussions take place behind the court's/CAS's back in that the court should not know about what was offered, conceded, said etc. Leaking WP discussions is really frowned upon.

 

[Paladin]

The part that makes me think City will be cleared is that Der Speigal or others have blacked out parts of the emails. If the blacked out parts would prove beyond doubt that City did what they are accused of they would have been printed in full, of that I have no doubt.

Who blacked out the text on the emails though? Der Speigel? If it was them, and the blacked out parts help to exhonorate us, surely they wouldn't be confident of a UEFA win, as they appear to be saying. The same goes for The Guardian, if they have also seen the full emails.