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

[Ancient Citizen]

What a disgraceful ****.




Nice to see we’ve got some allies now in the Geordies.

Apart from that utterly hypocritical fat Geordie **** on Youtube, yes.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

There's a report (https://thisisfutbol.com/2020/06/bl...city-sam-lee-provides-update-on-european-ban/) quoting him as follows:

"Obviously, I can’t see a settlement saying that City don’t get banned at all. I don’t think you ever would be very happy with that."

He's entitled to his opinion about the outcome but I don't like the comment that he would be unhappy if City won the appeal (assuming he's been reported correctly).

He said he'd heard speculation/rumour there might be a settlement.

He said in that scenario he can't imagine City accepting a 1 year ban unless they thought they were bang to rights (ie not confident in their position).

In that context (ie IF City bang to rights) "I can’t see a settlement saying that City don’t get banned at all. I don’t think UEFA would be very happy with that."

So this is futbol have both misquoted him ( used the words "you ever" rather than "UEFA") AND taken what he actually said out of context.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Spurs to win the league in 2022?

They'll be moving into yet another ground before that happens.

 

[Coatigan]

Well that would certainly make the German, French, Spanish, Italian and possibly English Premier Leagues a whole lot more interesting.

And arguably meaningless

 

[KS55]

He said he'd heard speculation/rumour there might be a settlement.

He said in that scenario he can't imagine City accepting a 1 year ban unless they thought they were bang to rights (ie not confident in their position).

In that context (ie IF City bang to rights) "I can’t see a settlement saying that City don’t get banned at all. I don’t think UEFA would be very happy with that."

So this is futbol have both misquoted him ( used the words "you ever" rather than "UEFA") AND taken what he actually said out of context.

They obvs misheard "you-ay-fa".

 

[Gordyola]

Sam lee just said he can see it being a 1year reduced ban of the limited infirmation he has tbf i dont think hes got a scooby!

He also said we wouldn’t get any ban and we got 2 on this subject he like the rest of us hasn’t got a clue

 

[Gazza]

And arguably meaningless

Not if you're a fan of any team other than the breakaway clubs - What is meaningless are leagues where the same team wins every year - Celtic, Bayern, Juventus, PSG.
I suppose it's the natural way to go, when teams are too good for a league they get promoted, that's what this is.

Having said all that, I don't agree with the breakaway though, City or no City involved.

 

[bluemanchester]

I think the answer is No.

His father was Ambassador to France for Abu Dhabi/UAE (not sure which) and was murdered in Paris when Khaldoon was a youngster.

There’s an interview with an American business guru on YouTube in which a Khaldoon talks about his early days.

One has to believe Khaldoon is better connected than Gill, Parry and Fenwick Sports put together.

Thanks for that, what I thought. For all his connections the Gill, Parry American owners and press do more damage to City than anything City or City directors can stop. Unless, we come out of CAS exonerated and some action is taken against those behind the never ending attacks against City.

 

[SWP's back]

There's a report (https://thisisfutbol.com/2020/06/bl...city-sam-lee-provides-update-on-european-ban/) quoting him as follows:

"Obviously, I can’t see a settlement saying that City don’t get banned at all. I don’t think you ever would be very happy with that."

He's entitled to his opinion about the outcome but I don't like the comment that he would be unhappy if City won the appeal (assuming he's been reported correctly).

He was talking about UEFA. It’s this weeks Totally Football Show if you want to listen. He’s not very insightful and knows a great deal less than several on this thread.

 

[bluemanchester]

The lower chamber didn't look I believe, presumably the upper chamber did. Either way they had the evidence to look at, at any time.

I thought the lower chamber, IC, only sent to the upper chamber ,AC, what evidence they had looked at. If that is the case the upper chamber, AC, may never have considered Citys dossier of evidence.