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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
domalino said:
Sorry but that's not evidence to contradict it at all. Think through what you're saying. You've seen an email bragging about how litigious Khaldoon is, and you think it's proof he wouldn't use lawyers to get rid of FFP if he wanted to?


Manchester City don't want to get rid of FFP, and the only evidence you need to know that's true is the fact they've taken absolutely no steps to get rid of it.

What they want is what every big club wants, to have enough revenue that FFP doesn't restrict them, while making future takeovers like ours by the Saudi's or Chinese or any other mega-billionaire completely unattractive through making it a 10+ year slog to get anywhere near the top.
Click to expand...

Don't be so arrogant. You're a poster on here, the same as the rest of us and yet you set yourself up as the Inquisitor General dealing with heretics who dare to question your divinely inspired opinion.

City have never accepted FFP. Their stance at the time of the takeover was that they intended to invest heavily but that they intended the club to become self financing. They took steps to ensure that we were not falling foul of FFP and were assured they were not. This is not necessarily acceptance of the regulations but rather a sensible step to avoid litigation. Similarly in 2014 when the club took the pinch although Khaldoon made clear what his instincts were. The problem was apparently dealt with - until 2018. The club replied appealing to CAS "in the first instance". If our appeal is upheld we need not concern ourselves with FFP again: if our appeal is rejected what might our recourse be to in the second instance?

So, don't presume to tell me what "the only evidence ..(I)...need to know" to make my own mind up is, and "What they want is what every big club wants, to have enough revenue that FFP doesn't restrict them, while making future takeovers like ours by the Saudi's or Chinese or any other mega-billionaire completely unattractive through making it a 10+ year slog to get anywhere near the top." is a logical conclusion of what City's attitude might be, but there's no evidence to back it up and you certainly haven't heard any representative of the club express such a view.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
Don't be so arrogant. You're a poster on here, the same as the rest of us and yet you set yourself up as the Inquisitor General dealing with heretics who dare to question your divinely inspired opinion.

City have never accepted FFP. Their stance at the time of the takeover was that they intended to invest heavily but that they intended the club to become self financing. They took steps to ensure that we were not falling foul of FFP and were assured they were not. This is not necessarily acceptance of the regulations but rather a sensible step to avoid litigation. Similarly in 2014 when the club took the pinch although Khaldoon made clear what his instincts were. The problem was apparently dealt with - until 2018. The club replied appealing to CAS "in the first instance". If our appeal is upheld we need not concern ourselves with FFP again: if our appeal is rejected what might our recourse be to in the second instance?

So, don't presume to tell me what "the only evidence ..(I)...need to know" to make my own mind up is, and "What they want is what every big club wants, to have enough revenue that FFP doesn't restrict them, while making future takeovers like ours by the Saudi's or Chinese or any other mega-billionaire completely unattractive through making it a 10+ year slog to get anywhere near the top." is a logical conclusion of what City's attitude might be, but there's no evidence to back it up and you certainly haven't heard any representative of the club express such a view.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight.

You think the club wants to get rid of FFP, but has taken absolutely zero steps to get rid of it because....?

And you can't seriously be telling me the club just wants to avoid litigation 2 minutes after bragging about how Khaldoon would love to spend £50m on lawyers to hurt UEFA?

The facts are simple.

1) FFP is of questionable legality
2) MCFC have unlimited resources to mount a legal challenge if they want to
3) They've never tried a legal challenge.

If your conclusion to that is anything other than "They don't want to challenge FFP" then you're kidding yourself.
 
Last edited:
johnmcfcagain said:
Off the top of my head I can think of at least two popular chants that use the abbreviation 'Man' in relation to City and one derogatory aimed at the Rags that uses the abbreviation. I don't really understand the opposition to it.
Click to expand...

I've used Man City my entire 40 years of supporting them. And that's a kid from Moss Side.

Manchester City can sounds so contrived, as if you are trying too hard to let people know your supposed blue credentials.

If it comes up in conversation that I am from Manchester and I'm asked who I support, then City will always suffice.

If I'm in the back of a yellow cab in New York, then you perhaps need to spell it out to the driver a little more and Manchester City is extended as a courtesy.
 
domalino said:
Sorry but that's not evidence to contradict it at all. Think through what you're saying. You've seen an email bragging about how litigious Khaldoon is, and you think it's proof he wouldn't use lawyers to get rid of FFP if he wanted to?


Manchester City don't want to get rid of FFP, and the only evidence you need to know that's true is the fact they've taken absolutely no steps to get rid of it, despite it ostensibly being a massive thorn in our side for a decade.

What they want is what every big club wants, to have enough revenue that FFP doesn't restrict them, while making future takeovers like ours by the Saudi's or Chinese or any other mega-billionaire completely unattractive through making it a 10+ year slog to get anywhere near the top.

We currently have 1 serious rival in the country. United are in stasis, Chelsea faltering after the government crackdown on Abramovic, Arsenal are sinking and Spurs are broke. The last thing ADUG want is FFP to be killed and more well run, infinitely wealthy clubs popping up to get into an arms race with.
Click to expand...
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
I've used Man City my entire 40 years of supporting them. And that's a kid from Moss Side.

Manchester City can sounds so contrived, as if you are trying too hard to let people know your supposed blue credentials.

If it comes up in conversation that I am from Manchester and I'm asked who I support, then City will always suffice.

If I'm in the back of a yellow cab in New York, then you perhaps need to spell it out to the driver a little more and Manchester City is extended as a courtesy.
Click to expand...
Yep, over here in the colonies I always have to say Manchester City unless it is in conversation with someone who is actually a knowledgeable football fan. I have friends who know who City is, but others who think you mean United if you mention Manchester City.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.