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

[slbsn]

For those still in denial, further reference today in the High Court to HH meaning SM (in emails) and specifically in respect of him personally (as opposed to "and family").

 

[JimmyGrimble10]

For those still in denial, further reference today in the High Court to HH meaning SM (in emails) and specifically in respect of him personally (as opposed to "and family").

is this good news for our case or?

 

[True_Blue69]

For those still in denial, further reference today in the High Court to HH meaning SM (in emails) and specifically in respect of him personally (as opposed to "and family").

What's going on in the high court?

 

[hihosilva]

For those still in denial, further reference today in the High Court to HH meaning SM (in emails) and specifically in respect of him personally (as opposed to "and family").

If HH is proven to be Sheikh Mansour on the email how is it possible for City to get around that issue?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Situations evolve, you see more of the other side's case, the other side's documents and evidence, advice can change etc. You have to react to the situation. It would disastrous to set a course and be unwavering if the situation changed and I am certain we would not have done that.

This is all true but I think it cuts both ways and my impression (and it is only an impression, like everything else in this case) is that City's attitude has hardened since 2018. Rather than encouraging City to settle developments since 2018 appear to have led the club increasingly to the view that we are being targeted unfairly: a (very severe) pinch in 2014 has merely paved the way for a real attempt to ruin us now. That an investigation was launched in 2018 was bad enough, the behaviour of whoever was responsible for the leaks (whoever was it, I wonder) was even worse and Leterme's dealing with City compared to his dealing with "other" enquiries was scandalous and raises serious questions not just about his integrity but about his honesty, there are real fears that our evidence was not even taken into account/given anything like proper consideration in the rush to meet UEFA's self imposed deadline. The AC then announce we hadn't cooperated and imposed a potentially devastating sanction. And these are the independent arms of the process! I think this explains why City don't appear to act with greater pragmatism and our reactions to the developing situation and I agree with your last sentence that we would not have followed our course unwaveringly had we not been very confident indeed that evidence showed FFP had not been breached (seriously or otherwise) and we were not convinced that UEFA were not intent on eradicating any trace of City's high investment model from European football.

 

[IcriedwhenTueartleft]

??? Perhaps

You should know by now how it works on here, it will be along the lines of “that Scottish prick” or “that Irish prick” but oddly, it’s never “that English prick”

 

[dickie davies]

What's going on in the high court?

Cast your mind back to 2008 when Sheikh Mansour invested into Barclays to save the bank from being taken over/bailed out by the British Government
Amanda Staveley, the person involved in SM's takeover of us and now the Newcastle deal, helped facilitate the Barclays deal
She also helped the Qatari's invest into Barclays
However, other parties were remunerated far more generously for the Qatari's involvement and Staveley is suing for a mere £1.5 billion

 

[Keith Moon]

For those still in denial, further reference today in the High Court to HH meaning SM (in emails) and specifically in respect of him personally (as opposed to "and family").

That doesn't change the fact that His Highness in the leaked email about the Aabar sponsorship could refer to His Highness The Crown prince.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

is this good news for our case or?

Neither really in @projectriver's opinion. It serves to weaken a suggestion that was put forward that the reference to HH in the hacked emails should be that it means the ruler of Abu Dhabi, and not Sheikh Mansour.

From what I can tell, @projectriver views it as an argument which is very weak, and that would be a minor issue at best, something that wouldn't form a central part of any case, if used at all.

 

[Centurions]

Neither really in @projectriver's opinion. It serves to weaken a suggestion that was put forward that the reference to HH in the hacked emails should be that it means the ruler of Abu Dhabi, and not Sheikh Mansour.

From what I can tell, @projectriver views it as an argument which is very weak, and that would be a minor issue at best, something that wouldn't form a central part of any case, if used at all.

I have to agree with him that we wouldn't be using that as a defence, as they were part of the hacked emails anyway our stance has always been 'no comment'. I can't see that changing with either UEFA or CAS.