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.

old blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Aug 2006
Messages
1,277
Pep again talked about qualifying for CL in the press conference for the Burnley game.
He might have been assured that if we lose this one,then we go up to the Swiss court. Surely they would not be daft enough to deny us a place if we have to escalate our claim.
 

Coatigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Jun 2019
Messages
1,961
Team supported
Manchester City
I actually agree with projectriver, that if CAS decides Uefa's verdict is founded, the 2 year ban is a proportionate punishment. And if Uefa's verdict is invalid, whether through misappropriation or wrong conclusion of evidence avilable, than no punishment is suitable.

The oney way i can see (with my limited understanding of what us available to the public) some level of partial punishment, that would supposedly please Uefa enough, while clearing the big hurdle of the ban for us is, if Cas find that our evidence and accounts were in order, and not a breach, but agrees with Uefa's charge that we were 'uncooperative'. in which case, what is proportionate, probably a fine?

That for me is the only logical middle ground, where the club can accept a punishment for something so subjective and most likely bollocks, but still maintain we were right with our claims that we did nothing wrong.

Otherwise, it's all in or nothing for both.
 
Last edited:

iwasthere1968

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
322
Behind a set of audited accounts is an audit. An auditor comes into a company to verify its numbers for the year with reference to the documents and evidence. It can't check or review everything (there is a materiality threshold) but it is bound to have checked one of the most material contracts in the business worth 10-15% of revenue. It will also have sought evidence of the contract and the payment being made and that they reconciled and if not why not. There are 2 sides to every payment so no we would not need Etihad's bank statement which it obviously had no power to get.

And Etihad did make a statement: “Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.
Beat me to it
 

spiny

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 Feb 2010
Messages
542
I can see Pep staying longer if we win the CAS appeal.

He has had a break and where else would appeal with all the uncertainty over coronavirus?
 

Newman Noggs

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Messages
6,756
Location
Gone fishin'
I actually agree with projectriver, that if CAS decides Uefa's verdict is founded, the 2 year ban is a proportionate punishment. And if Uefa's verdict is invalid, whether through misappropriation or wrong conclusion of evidence avilable, than no punishment is suitable.

The onely way i can see (with my limited understanding of what us available to the public) some level of partial punishment, that would supposedly please Uefa enough, while clearing the big hurdle of the ban for us is, if Cas find that our evidence and accounts were in order, and not a breach, but agrees with Uefa's charge that we were 'uncooperative'. in which case, what is proportionate, probably a fine?

That for me is the only logical middle ground, where the club can accept a punishment for something so subjective and most likely bollocks, but still maintain we were right with our claims that we did nothing wrong.

Otherwise, it's all in or nothing for both.
Agreed. And the proportionality argument would depend on our reasons for being "uncooperative". If, for example, CAS found that we were justified in our belief that UEFA were leaking like a sieve, I'd expect a nominal fine at most. But who knows ?

Whatever judgement they reach, the rationale should be very interesting.
 

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
921
Agreed. And the proportionality argument would depend on our reasons for being "uncooperative". If, for example, CAS found that we were justified in our belief that UEFA were leaking like a sieve, I'd expect a nominal fine at most. But who knows ?

Whatever judgement they reach, the rationale should be very interesting.
Surely its extremely unlikely that CAS finds UEFA wrong on breach but right on a cooperation charge thats serious enough justify a ban. Pretty impossible I think. Any finding on cooperation where the main case is overturned can only be a sideshow. And if the main appeal is not upheld, I suspect they will find against us on cooperation as well.
 

hihosilva

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 May 2011
Messages
3,497
Location
Brain Transplant
Surely its extremely unlikely that CAS finds UEFA wrong on breach but right on a cooperation charge thats serious enough justify a ban. Pretty impossible I think. Any finding on cooperation where the main case is overturned can only be a sideshow. And if the main appeal is not upheld, I suspect they will find against us on cooperation as well.
There was some initial cooperation from City before they stopped communication & that was justified because of the leaks.
 

Prater70

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
91
Age
71
Team supported
Man City
But we did cooperate with the first breach in 2014 and bit the bullet. Look where that got us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top