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

[Dirty Harry]

It shouldn't be. If we can show that ADUG wasn't the originator but the conduit then I'd hope we would be OK. Naturally UEFA would probably try to change the rules again no doubt.

Thanks PB, and I think that's part of the (our) problem here, possibly even the biggest, and that's one of 'Interpretation', over the past 5 years I've had to read up on quite a few appeals/judicial reviews (not by fuckin choice I might add) and one thing stands out, even though these people are highly respected and exceptionally knowledgeable Judges etc, even they have a difference of opinion and often interpret things quite differently, fingers crossed it goes our way.

 

[KS55]

I tried that in the sixties. Kept going back to Maine Road and we kept getting whacked, then one day we won!

Me too. My dad, not a football fan, asked what possible pleasure there was in going to a broken down old stadium to see my team lose. He had a point.

 

[SilverFox2]

No, I meant @Exeter Blue I am here . Your example may well be exactly what happened. Too often even blues fall into the Leterme trap and assume, ab initio, that the mails describe what we did. No wonder he didn't bother to look at our evidence.

Thanks. Glad to see we are not taking a written conversation as evidence of actual outcome.

 

[KS55]

Quite probably an unknown journalist from a newspaper in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1981, reporting on an AA meeting. On the other hand, it may have been the author Rita Mae Brown, as said by the character Jane Fulton, In the book Sudden Death In 1983. It almost certainly wasn’t Albert Einstein, to whom it is usually attributed.

As recently as that? I bow to your superior literary knowledge.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

So you're arguing that what Etihad paid city was not in accordance with the contract and that City just inflated it to suit circumstances at the time?

The simple answer to that is it depends what was in the contract. UEFA don't appear to me to have a case within the body of the emails. They have a case to ask questions but any city fan can immediately come back with a retort of explanation of what might have happened. It depends on what the evidence says. I expect some amount of cronyism in a state ruled by a royal family but that does not amount to guilt imo.

The rest of the football world never tried to look at it from City's angle so of course they saw these emails as completely damning. They are imo the actions of a club who have just seen UEFA rip the carpet from under them when UEFA moved the FFP goalposts away (they changed the way they were asssessing FFP midway through a review period).

Thanks you saved me the tedious effect of replying.

 

[KS55]

I'm not sure that City's transfer plans have been massively effected by this (for the moment). I'm guessing that a 2 year ban will obviously change that, but if they don't get a ban then things will carry on as normal with no effect.

Oh no, another Isco rumour.

 

[BobbyBoy]

So you're arguing that what Etihad paid city was not in accordance with the contract and that City just inflated it to suit circumstances at the time?

The simple answer to that is it depends what was in the contract. UEFA don't appear to me to have a case within the body of the emails. They have a case to ask questions but any city fan can immediately come back with a retort of explanation of what might have happened. It depends on what the evidence says. I expect some amount of cronyism in a state ruled by a royal family but that does not amount to guilt imo.

The rest of the football world never tried to look at it from City's angle so of course they saw these emails as completely damning. They are imo the actions of a club who have just seen UEFA rip the carpet from under them when UEFA moved the FFP goalposts away (they changed the way they were asssessing FFP midway through a review period).

No what I'm trying to say is Eithad pleading the poor man who need government assistance on one hand and front loading unnecessary payments on the other is a bad look. The front loading part may have been someone speculating (PB I think).

 

[the talisman]

I know this has been done to death but if the sponsor is a related party then can you just pay yourself as long as it’s deemed fair value?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Oh no, another Isco rumour.

Hahah

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

No what I'm trying to say is Eithad pleading the poor man who need government assistance on one hand and front loading unnecessary payments on the other is a bad look. The front loading part may have been someone speculating (PB I think).

Not as bad as trying to furlough staff, cheating through a CL quarter-final with a handball winner, cheating us out of numerous results over the years through convenient referee calls and needing a loan because you're up to your eyeballs with the new stadium.