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

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

As much as Delooney blocking blues en masse could be a sign that he’s had a tip-off that it’s gone our way, I can’t honestly see it. Not a chance that lunatic fucker gets a scoop like that ahead of every other journalist.

Whilst I completely agree that the likelihood anyone in any position of knowledge or influence at UEFA would think it even remotely important to tip-off a complete nobody like Delaney, it is entirely possible someone higher up the food chain in the clique of journos whose job it is to see the Premier League become the protected playground of the US-based leveraged buy-out has had a nod from someone in the know.

Although Delaney himself clearly lacks any credibility whatsoever, there are other journalists with vested interests who have built up a level of credibility which may allow them access to people who definitely would know UEFA's prospects following the hearing last week. There is plenty of easily accessible evidence, for example, that Tariq Panja at the NYT has a long-established relationship with David Gill - who clearly would be very much in the loop as to how confident or otherwise UEFA are of success.

That said, it's still more than likely just another example of his bizarre, narcissistic ravings. Probably best ignored, rather than attaching any significance to it - as with most of his output!

 

[bluemanchester]

Another poster has already mentioned that Pannick didn't take City's case in the end. In addition, Ceferin's use of the word concrete to describe UEFA's case against City didn't mean cut and dried. In Slavic languages concrete means specific or actual. Ceferin's translation of the Slovenian word resulted an inaccurate meaning in English.

I would think Ceferin knows what concrete meant when he said it as he would certainly know the difference between a concrete coffin and an actual or specific coffin. The concrete quote may have sunk UEFAs case to the bottom of their stagnent pool.

 

[Dirty Harry]

As much as Delooney blocking blues en masse could be a sign that he’s had a tip-off that it’s gone our way, I can’t honestly see it. Not a chance that lunatic fucker gets a scoop like that ahead of every other journalist.

His ego wouldn't allow it, it'd be all over the show if he did by now.

 

[theres only one carlito]

I am very very confident about this. I have published another article entitled “Man City may have just replicated the 2012 comeback against QPR in its case against UEFA last week”

The article can be viewed at - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/man-city-may-have-just-replicated-2012-comeback-against-joshua-levy/

Great Read,

I disagree with the confidentiality behaviour of UEFA Here though. A big Part of our case against them was the process itself and the fact they leaked things and compromised the fairness of the processes. Imo they had no choice but too want confidentiality this time Round as too look like they had that Mind set from the beginning. To let the world see the hearing would surly prove they wanted too ‘out’ us from the beginning.

Whilst I completely agree that the likelihood anyone in any position of knowledge or influence at UEFA would think it even remotely important to tip-off a complete nobody like Delaney, it is entirely possible someone higher up the food chain in the clique of journos whose job it is to see the Premier League become the protected playground of the US-based leveraged buy-out has had a nod from someone in the know.

Although Delaney himself clearly lacks any credibility whatsoever, there are other journalists with vested interests who have built up a level of credibility which may allow them access to people who definitely would know UEFA's prospects following the hearing last week. There is plenty of easily accessible evidence, for example, that Tariq Panja at the NYT has a long-established relationship with David Gill - who clearly would be very much in the loop as to how confident or otherwise UEFA are of success.

That said, it's still more than likely just another example of his bizarre, narcissistic ravings. Probably best ignored, rather than attaching any significance to it - as with most of his output!

If I was city i’d put out a seed of false info on the likelyhood you’d find the leak.

 

[blueparrot]

Whilst I completely agree that the likelihood anyone in any position of knowledge or influence at UEFA would think it even remotely important to tip-off a complete nobody like Delaney, it is entirely possible someone higher up the food chain in the clique of journos whose job it is to see the Premier League become the protected playground of the US-based leveraged buy-out has had a nod from someone in the know.

Although Delaney himself clearly lacks any credibility whatsoever, there are other journalists with vested interests who have built up a level of credibility which may allow them access to people who definitely would know UEFA's prospects following the hearing last week. There is plenty of easily accessible evidence, for example, that Tariq Panja at the NYT has a long-established relationship with David Gill - who clearly would be very much in the loop as to how confident or otherwise UEFA are of success.

That said, it's still more than likely just another example of his bizarre, narcissistic ravings. Probably best ignored, rather than attaching any significance to it - as with most of his output!

I think it's highly unlikely anybody has been told anything. What is possible though is somebody involved or close to the hearing has been asked the question and just a look or tone of answer can give an indication, on either side.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

I think it's highly unlikely anybody has been told anything. What is possible though is somebody involved or close to the hearing has been asked the question and just a look or tone of answer can give an indication, on either side.

Yep - you may be right on the specifics. What is clear though is that information (however limited) is starting to get out - see Tolmie's post from yesterday evening for an example. Clearly this hasn't been as complex a case for CAS to adjudicate as was anticipated, hence the shortened timelines on an announcement of their judgement.

That likely means it will have been relatively obvious to the respective representations at CAS which way the panel was leaning on certain critical issues within the argument, given the considerable experience and expertise of both teams.

If that's the case - it then follows that both UEFA and City will have been briefed accordingly. And we also know some within UEFA are almost pathologically disposed to leaking or 'giving away' information. It's just what they do.

I'm not for a moment saying I think it's gone our way - I have absolutely no idea - but given the apparent and unexpected speed and clarity of the decision making following the hearing, to think it wasn't very clear to the vastly experienced legal representations for both sides which way CAS was leaning on the critical arguments put forward by each would be naive.

 

[oakiecokie]

Nerves will grow on here too as July approaches.

Only by the bed wetters and flappers Marvin.

 

[Marvin]

Only by the bed wetters and flappers Marvin.

And by any blue who knows how important this is.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I am very very confident about this. I have published another article entitled “Man City may have just replicated the 2012 comeback against QPR in its case against UEFA last week”

The article can be viewed at - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/man-city-may-have-just-replicated-2012-comeback-against-joshua-levy/

I rather hope that City have "irrefutable " proof in the form of bank statements receipts etc that demonstrate that the club has not breached FFP at all. In my opinion this would prove UEFA's "bad faith" more conclusively than anything else. It would actually confirm the intention which underlies comments and actions beginning with Platini's obsession with City's spending power at the time FFP was introduced, through City's breaches and the settlement of 2014, to the relaxation of 2015 which allowed "new" owners a year longer to return to profitability than Sheikh Mansour had been allowed, right through to the present case and the question of what reforms Ceferin intends as a result of Covid 19 (which raises the question of the whole relevance of FFP). I think the present case does raise the question of UEFA's motives starkly since they have to go back to 2010-13 to find offences. Hopefully City have shown UEFA cannot reopen these cases which have been dealt with and they certainly raise the question of the intention behind FFP. Our unquestioned and unquestionable compliance since shows that the club's financial stability has never been under threat (whereas UEFA never bothers to ask whether Manchester United's liabilities put it in real danger) and UEFA would be hard put to prove that FFP was not actually there to obstruct certain clubs which are actually the most stable financially.

Unfortunately I'm not certain such arguments would be sufficient on their own to induce CAS to uphold our appeal, since they appear to accept that City has breached FFP, but if our appeal is rejected and we were in court challenged by other PL clubs or we went to the ECJ to argue that the UEFA's sanction had been imposed in accordance with rules which were not consistent with the owner and club's rights at law I think they would carry weight, but we would still have to show that FFP is not lawful.

This is, of course, an opinion based on total ignorance of the hearing and which is certainly is of no value compared to what our counsel put forward. So a very good article, Silva2 and I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[flook]

I am very very confident about this. I have published another article entitled “Man City may have just replicated the 2012 comeback against QPR in its case against UEFA last week”

The article can be viewed at - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/man-city-may-have-just-replicated-2012-comeback-against-joshua-levy/

enjoyed that but think you may be going off a bit half cock on some issues, perhaps edit for the correct legal rep?