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

[bluemanchester]

Confidence is a funny thing.

I think that finding out the Executive Council was indirectly funding our sponsorship by giving Etihad money so they could afford it, plus the very antagonistic nature of the emails will have angered a lot of people at UEFA to the point where I could see a bunch of people in the Investigatory Chamber like Parry and Leterme just deciding they were going to fuck us, and ignore anything we said at the time or any evidence we presented.

However where my confidence hits the rocks is that Rodrigues de Cunha seems like a pretty serious operator and a very experienced judge. So I find it hard to believe he would take part in railroading us without a proper case.

However, we do know that Leterme & co. have fucked over de Cunha before by deceiving him to get stuff pushed through. So if that happened I could understand how we end up at CAS with a case that's easy to win.

Otherwise, with the AC and its panel of judges given the full facts to make their decision, I can't get confident about 3 more judges reaching a totally different verdict.

But did de Cunha see Citys dossier. If the IC did not consider it then it would not have been passed on. I think!

 

[bluemanchester]

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

As I said a few pages ago, if the full email proved Citys undoing Der Speigle, without a shadow of doubt, would have published it.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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.

God I hope we have some "irrefutable evidence" because those emails don't read great do they?

 

[seafordblue]

I know it’s probably been explained to me already and I lack the financial savvy to understand it, but this just seems to be at the heart of everything to me, and everything else about City having bona fide accounts, etc, etc, is just flim flam.
Did Sheikh Mansour directly fund Etihad out of his own pocket with a view to Etihad then returning that money to City’s coffers as sponsorship? And if so, would that action constitute a breach of FFP under the broad church of owner investment? Somebody help me please.....!

I also raised the same point as you back on page 3051 of this thread. It seems we both agree that the evidence required to clear City is the Etihad accounts from the period in question which show an outgoing to City of the relevant amount for that financial year and no income from ADUG or Sheik Monsour.

This is the evidence required, but the counter argument I'm beginning to understand is that we are unable to show the evidence we need and will therefore be aiming to win the argument based on this all having been agreed as acceptable in the 2014 settlement agreement.

Hence the main focus of our case is to win on a technicality..

 

[slbsn]

God I hope we have some "irrefutable evidence" because those emails don't read great do they?

It's almost as if UEFA sent in PwC in 2014, didn't believe or agree our version of events, threatened to sanction the club, negotiated a settlement relating precisely to these matters, monitored us for 2 more years (obviously then knowing what to look out for), confirmed we'd satisfied the settlement agreement and moved on, only to come back to the same thing a while later....

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I also raised the same point as you back on page 3051 of this thread. It seems we both agree that the evidence required to clear City is the Etihad accounts from the period in question which show an outgoing to City of the relevant amount for that financial year and no income from ADUG or Sheik Monsour.

This is the evidence required, but the counter argument I'm beginning to understand is that we are unable to show the evidence we need and will therefore be aiming to win the argument based on this all having been agreed as acceptable in the 2014 settlement agreement.

Hence the main focus of our case is to win on a technicality..

If that’s the case and I were a gambling man, then I’d say we’re screwed. If ADUG was feeding money into Etihad with a view to it being funnelled back to us as sponsorship, my instinct (which I know counts for sod all) is that this case is too high profile for CAS to bite the bullet and throw it out on technical grounds, and the ban will be upheld

 

[chesterbells]

Nothing to see here fo a month, some informed speculation and guesswork and some outright daft stuff too.

No one apart from each side and the legal teams have ANY idea of what’s being presented as evidence and neither side know what the final call by CAS will be.

Personally I’m seeing action taken, rushed by the IC/AC, off the back of potentially un-contextualised emails (with half redacted ) die to the time statute running out.

Cerafin is obviously nervous but the AC are highly qualified guys who must think they have something.

Looking forward to picking up on this next month when we actually know something.

Yep, time running out seems to be a key doesn’t it?
Ok, adios, see you next month then.

 

[dannybcity]

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

For anybody that can be arsed, I'm pretty sure Der Spiegel have breached Privacy and Communication Regs with their cookies notice. I might be wrong but you're meant to provide freely given consent, giving someone the option of accepting cookies or paying not to have them isn't that.

 

[John Wayne]

It's almost as if UEFA sent in PwC in 2014, didn't believe or agree our version of events, threatened to sanction the club, negotiated a settlement relating precisely to these matters, monitored us for 2 more years (obviously then knowing what to look out for), confirmed we'd satisfied the settlement agreement and moved on, only to come back to the same thing a while later....

UEFA have previously failed at CAS in trying to prosecute matters already covered by a settlement.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

God I hope we have some "irrefutable evidence" because those emails don't read great do they?

They look worse than I remembered