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

[projectriver]

There was some initial cooperation from City before they stopped communication & that was justified because of the leaks.

They didn't stop communication. We know there was at least 100 documents submitted by City to support its initial submissions.

 

[nmc]

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.

Comments in CAS 1 must give us optimism re the cooperation charge. CAS seemed concerned about the leaks which seemed to be the reason primary City stopped providing sensitive information.

 

[LucahArchie10]

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.

I dont think City will give uefa anything & why should they??

It's all made up inc the stupid fine.

Win or win simples....

 

[KS55]

We are just waiting now. I'd normally say it was agony but I am very relaxed. I am confident we will win the appeal.
1. Khaldoon and Soriano have been strong in their assertions that we have not breached. They have given their absolute word to Pep and his staff, to the players, to everybody that works for City and, most importantly, to the fans. They are honourable men who would not lie in this way. True, they are businessmen and businesses sometimes sail close to the wind. Unless these guys have made a big mistake that Uefa has uncovered, we will prevail.
2. Fine work by Stefan and Colin has made it easy for us to see the case clearly and Uefa's looks thin.
3. Er...we are the new City and the old typical City is dead.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

I didn't suggest a ban, but a fine, as a proportionate action to supposed lack of cooperation. Why do you think it unlikely, that if our evidence really IS irrefutable, how we gave it to uefa, when and so on can still not be deemed 'uncooperative'. i.e, saves face, Uefa got it wrong, but supposedly only because we werent forthcoming with the info otherwise. We were right, our evidence was fine, but we didn't play along so don't walk away scot free.
It isn't an outcome in expecting, im jyst making the point that for me, it is the onle so calles middle ground i personally can possibly see at this point.

 

[KS55]

I didn't suggest a ban, but a fine, as a proportionate action to supposed lack of cooperation. Why do you think it unlikely, that if our evidence really IS irrefutable, how we gave it to uefa, when and so on can still not be deemed 'uncooperative'. i.e, saves face, Uefa got it wrong, but supposedly only because we werent forthcoming with the info otherwise. We were right, our evidence was fine, but we didn't play along so don't walk away scot free.
It isn't an outcome in expecting, im jyst making the point that for me, it is the onle so calles middle ground i personally can possibly see at this point.

If we get a slap on the wrist for non cooperation or some slapdash paper work, but win on the substantive issue, that's ok. Let uefa have their little triumph.

 

[Centurions]

He should sign an extension then.

Ederson? He signed a 7 year contract 2 years back.

 

[projectriver]

I didn't suggest a ban, but a fine, as a proportionate action to supposed lack of cooperation. Why do you think it unlikely, that if our evidence really IS irrefutable, how we gave it to uefa, when and so on can still not be deemed 'uncooperative'. i.e, saves face, Uefa got it wrong, but supposedly only because we werent forthcoming with the info otherwise. We were right, our evidence was fine, but we didn't play along so don't walk away scot free.
It isn't an outcome in expecting, im jyst making the point that for me, it is the onle so calles middle ground i personally can possibly see at this point.

CAS doesn't care about saving face. More critically, there is no way this so called "irrefutable evidence" (which will just be strong and not irrefutable) was not provided to UEFA before the AC decision. UEFA will simply have taken a different of view of its strength as a defence.

Remember if it was truly irrefutable, UEFA wouldn't have gone ahead with the CAS hearing - they certainly had City's written submissions and supporting docs in the days before the hearing.

If the UEFA's case falls over I just don't think co-operation will come into it.

 

[Coatigan]

CAS doesn't care about saving face. More critically, there is no way this so called "irrefutable evidence" (which will just be strong and not irrefutable) was not provided to UEFA before the AC decision. UEFA will simply have taken a different of view of its strength as a defence.

If the UEFA's case falls over I just don't think co-operation will come into it.

Fair enough. Perhaps.

If we get the ban overturned, the rest really won't matter.

 

[Newman Noggs]

If the UEFA's case falls over I just don't think co-operation will come into it.

I disagree. Non-co-operation is, as you say, a serious allegation in its own right and, if the main allegation were to fail, UEFA could argue that it reached its decision because they weren't in possession of the full facts due to City's non-co-operation. Therefore the ban should be upheld. Two separate matters independent of each other either of which merit a ban thus providing two bites of the cherry.