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

[cityzen81]

I tend to agree with @Prestwich_Blue about not being totally confident in this case. As he says Rodrigues de Cunha seems like a highly qualified and respected judge and I can’t imagine him passing down such a heavy punishment without merit and with the possibility of also damaging his credibility.

Do we know if he is the one who came up with the final outcome for City? I thought the IC had recommended a 1 year ban initially?

 

[HelloCity]

Daft example but below is how a redacted email could be taken out of context

Was actually

This all falls to shit if uefa have seen unredacted emails and their interpretation is not in doubt.

Please ignore if bollocks

You might want to delete this, mate.

UEFA will use it at CAS as more evidence gathered against us.

 

[petrusha]

But I don't think UEFA will be satisfied by a purely legal view of this. They're out to prove that we received disguised owner investment and we used that to inflate actual sponsorship revenue.

I posted this a day or two back, but the irony is that the sponsorship was allegedly inflated in the sense that we received a much greater amount than that the sponsor actually paid itself. But UEFA's appraisers found that the overall value of the sponsorship was fair, so the purported ADUG owner funding can have only ensured that MCFC received an appropriate sum for its main sponsorship agreement. Based on the expert advice provided to UEFA, we could legitimately have expected to receive a similar amount from a different sponsor without ADUG having to tip up any funds. In other words, if we properly understand what's been alleged, there's been no real financial benefit to City.

I'll be devastated if this case goes against us given the detrimental effect it will have on the club's future. However, I'll also probably also manage a wry smile, because to manage to land ourselves with a ruinous ban for cheating the rules when this happened in pursuance of a scheme that was never aimed at benefiting the club frankly seems like the ultimate 'Typical City' moment.

 

[slbsn]

It is worth a quick look at the documents themselves to illustrate a couple of points. https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278 First, whichever funding structure was used it looks likely that Etihad cash was put into the club via the correct entity (see page 4). Both options put forward by the CFO had money coming from Etihad to City. Likewise on page 3, the club were very aware that the actual payment flow had to come from the relevant contractual entity.

On context, page 1 is a perfect example. The email is obviously true and is largely unredacted. But it is pre-contractual, how many other emails exist, what did the final deal look like, what did the rest of the thread say, when was the actual contract signed (if ever) etc etc. I do not believe you can conclude anything from one email in a thread like that. We shall see.

 

[Phil1]

I tend to agree with @Prestwich_Blue about not being totally confident in this case. As he says Rodrigues de Cunha seems like a highly qualified and respected judge and I can’t imagine him passing down such a heavy punishment without merit and with the possibility of also damaging his credibility.

Do we know if he is the one who came up with the final outcome for City? I thought the IC had recommended a 1 year ban initially?

I might have missed a few of his posts recently but I’m sure PB was once very confident that we would win this case?
Although on saying that he’s also sure we’ve got enough dirt on Liverpool to destroy their season and I don’t believe that’s true in the slightest.

 

[Coatigan]

Exactly. Those emails are evidence of a conversation, but not of what was actually done. I sent my wife a text last week that I was going to the cinema with my friend Tom. I actually went to the pub with my secret lover. But I have proof that I am totally innocent, its on wife's phone !

Unless derSpeigl get a hold of this post!

then even the cinema ticket, a full account of the fim or witnesses will help!

 

[Sir peace frog]

.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I am speaking blind but those are just 2 of the hurdles. Beyond that UEFA have to make good serious allegations including, most likely, that our audited accounts are false on the basis of a few pre-contractual emails from Simon Pearce

Makes you wonder how Simon Pearce is still in position. I remain certain we will be cleared but it doesn't alter the fact that a few unprofessional emails have caused huge problems for CFG. Senior people, expecially lawyers, always like to say: "It's not personal. It's just business."
But in the real world personal stuff matters. The joke in one email about the death of the UEFA official must have gone down like a lead balloon with some of his colleagues never mind: "We can do what we want."
Whatever the outcome I hope we as a business have tightened up on our email protocols and cybersecurity. For all I despise UEFA I still believe this whole farce was a self-inflicted wound.

 

[oakiecokie]

Makes you wonder how Simon Pearce is still in position. I remain certain we will be cleared but it doesn't alter the fact that a few unprofessional emails have caused huge problems for CFG. Senior people, expecially lawyers, always like to say: "It's not personal. It's just business."
But in the real world personal stuff matters. The joke in one email about the death of the UEFA official must have gone down like a lead balloon with some of his colleagues never mind: "We can do what we want."
Whatever the outcome I hope we as a business have tightened up on our email protocols and cybersecurity. For all I despise UEFA I still believe this whole farce was a self-inflicted wound.

Well I hope we don`t end up with a fucking big scar to show for it later.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I posted this a day or two back, but the irony is that the sponsorship was allegedly inflated in the sense that we received a much greater amount than that the sponsor actually paid itself. But UEFA's appraisers found that the overall value of the sponsorship was fair, so the purported ADUG owner funding can have only ensured that MCFC received an appropriate sum for its main sponsorship agreement. Based on the expert advice provided to UEFA, we could legitimately have expected to receive a similar amount from a different sponsor without ADUG having to tip up any funds. In other words, if we properly understand what's been alleged, there's been no real financial benefit to City.

I'll be devastated if this case goes against us given the detrimental effect it will have on the club's future. However, I'll also probably also manage a wry smile, because to manage to land ourselves with a ruinous ban for cheating the rules when this happened in pursuance of a scheme that was never aimed at benefiting the club frankly seems like the ultimate 'Typical City' moment.

Interesting view but I'd argue that point is moot Peter, in the sense that it only works if we've agreed Etihad is a related party, which renders the question of who paid largely irrelevant, as long as it's fair value.

I'm still of the belief that if what Der Spiegel published was the best they had, then it wasn't good enough. We'll see.