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

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Fucking hell, you’re a right bundle of laughs you. You peddle the same line over and over again, and while many of us don’t doubt that there’s pressure on UEFA from certain individuals and clubs to punish us, you take the paranoia to a different level altogether (which is laughably ironic when you accused the 1894 Group of paranoia the other week for that display - I mean, what the fuck do you want an anti-UEFA display to say?). Even more bizarre is that your posts appear to imply that you’re of the view that we are guilty of what we’ve been accused of, so you can’t exactly go skriking that anyone and everyone is out to get us when you think we’re guilty as fuck anyway.

I’ll tell you something - if I ever feel the need to slit my wrists, I’ll just read one of your posts for extra motivation ffs!

Hmmm, not really arsed to be honest

 

[Citizen Green]

Watching this team tonight, and the players we have was and continues to be a joy, I’m praying we win this or get a more favourable outcome as the thought of loosing some of these players is heartbreaking.

 

[WRicko]

I think its wrong - he's relying on Swiss Ramble. Conn's well briefed article on 22 Jan 2020 said it was considered related but as we settled it was a moot point. But we don't know for sure.

I have had a look and I think Conn says that we agreed not to increase the value of 2 second tier sponsorship presumably Aabar and Etisalet (implying related but not saying it)and that PWC considered Etihad related party but not over valued. No mention of it in the settlement suggesting they just let it go as not related or over valued in fact I think he says somewhere UEFA would not push the related party issue

 

[nmc]

I have had a look and I think Conn says that we agreed not to increase the value of 2 second tier sponsorship presumably Aabar and Etisalet (implying related but not saying it)and that PWC considered Etihad related party but not over valued. No mention of it in the settlement suggesting they just let it go as not related or over valued in fact I think he says somewhere UEFA would not push the related party issue

Thats my recollection too.

 

[KS55]

LATE NEWS FLASH
City played a game of footy tonight.
CITY 3 RED TEAM 0.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Hmmm, not really arsed to be honest

If that’s the case then shut up fucking moaning

 

[BringBackSwales]

Fucking hell, you’re a right bundle of laughs you. You peddle the same line over and over again, and while many of us don’t doubt that there’s pressure on UEFA from certain individuals and clubs to punish us, you take the paranoia to a different level altogether (which is laughably ironic when you accused the 1894 Group of paranoia the other week for that display - I mean, what the fuck do you want an anti-UEFA display to say?). Even more bizarre is that your posts appear to imply that you’re of the view that we are guilty of what we’ve been accused of, so you can’t exactly go skriking that anyone and everyone is out to get us when you think we’re guilty as fuck anyway.

I’ll tell you something - if I ever feel the need to slit my wrists, I’ll just read one of your posts for extra motivation ffs!

Well said

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

If that’s the case then shut up fucking moaning

Fuck me, he’s brought his mum

 

[Coatigan]

I have found an interesting case with some analogies to what seems to be at the core of the City case. In CAS 2013/A/3233 PAE Giannina 1966 v. UEFA

[GULP]

And CAS ultimately dismissed the appeal, confirming UEFA's decision.

Hopefully our books are a lot more detailed and complete.

 

[the talisman]

the Panel considers that the question whether the Appellant has breached Article 47 CL&FFP may remain undecided. The mere existence of overdue payables is indeed sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League."

So am I reading this right, they couldn’t make a judgement on the FFP issue but they upheld the ban because of unpaid bills?