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

[slbsn]

I thought UEFA were charging us with distorting revenue and non-cooperation, and that CAS had already raised concerns about the conduct of UEFA's investigation which appeared to City fans as being a public trial played out in conjunction with media smear.

At the minimum I expect the sanction to be reduced.

Right or wrong, I have consistently felt the non-cooperation charge is irrelevant. If CAS finds for UEFA on the principal issues they are such serious matters that non-cooperation is a minor but ultimately irrelevant aggravating factor. If CAS finds for City, there is no way (IMO) that it makes any meaningful sanction based on a wholly subjective "non-cooperation" charge. We know, for example, that City made substantial submissions and it is very hard to show that this was "non-cooperation".

 

[Centurions]

Why would all other clubs be in the dock as well? Changing the toolkit was always going to affect City more than practically every other club because just before UEFA brought FFP in, we spent an absolute shit ton of money on players in 2009 and 2010 (as was our right because there was no FFP then), so as a result of those purchases and the huge increase in our wage bill we were always going to be struggling to pass the break-even test during the first monitoring period, even without UEFA moving the goalposts. However, by moving them when they did it became the difference between perhaps not being in breach and failing by a mile. Either way, because FFP was foisted upon us immediately after a period of very heavy spending, IMO there’s no real scandal in us failing FFP during that first monitoring period. Sure, I agree with @petrusha that we took the piss a bit by trying to include certain things in our revenue but on the flip side UEFA took the piss too by changing the toolkit when they did so we can call that a draw.

If I understand it correctly, we knew we would fail the break even requirements by a country mile but because it was the first monitoring period the toolkit seemed to suggest that we could use mitigating circumstances (the pre- 2010(?) wages) to avoid actual punishment. Hence the "small pinch" statement where the reduced squad and relatively small fine didn't affect us too much.

 

[Centurions]

FWIW the settlement agreement expressly stated we made no admission in respect of the breaches

"[The Settlement Agreement] specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR." para 6 of https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

Cheers, that's the first 'new' information on the 2014 case that I've seen for a good long while.

 

[M18CTID]

If I understand it correctly, we knew we would fail the break even requirements by a country mile but because it was the first monitoring period the toolkit seemed to suggest that we could use mitigating circumstances (the pre- 2010(?) wages) to avoid actual punishment. Hence the "small pinch" statement where the reduced squad and relatively small fine didn't affect us too much.

Apologies if I didn’t make it clear, but yes, when I said not being in breach I meant once the pre-June 2010 contracts were taken into consideration. The changing of the toolkit, however, meant that we weren’t even able to use that provision despite being led to believe by UEFA (before they moved the goalposts) that we could.

 

[kdbrise]

The fact that one angle, which clearly shows the ball hitting Llorente's hand, is rarely if ever shown, even now, speaks volumes for me !

Anyone else think the drawing process is suspicious too, both times going out to English clubs so it won't look like they are favoring a particular FA. It it happened against Bayern or Barca, English media would be more sympathetic to us.

 

[Keeper!]

When you look at the detail the whole thing really does stink.

We were stitched up like a kipper, whether we had missed FFP by hundreds of millions is immaterial given the initial formula they sent would have seen us fail but avoid sanction.

They moved the goal posts. That is the top and bottom of it.

This whole current charade is because they wanted to revisit this time period based on a few misconstrued emails.

We should have challenged in 2014 the same way we have challenged this time. We took a pinch and gave them a level of trust we felt would be reciprocated.

I don’t see any other logical way of looking at it other than the G14 and parts of UEFA being out to stop us.

It really is as simple as that.

If I remember correctly we headhunted two UEFA accountants whom has been involved in setting up FFP, after they joined us UEFA changed the rules.

Does anyone know if these two are sill employed by MCFC or CFG?

 

[Ban-jani]

If it’s reduced to 1 year, I can actually see Pep extending for 2 more years to try and win the CL with us.

I can’t see him wanting to leave without it.

Just a side thought, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world but agree we should be pushing all the way to winning outright.

 

[OB1]

Can't believe I will be 46. I certainly feel old.

Aged 20 years in last four months!

Would love to go back in time machine to have seen those bastards relegated.

I was there but I think 46 is young so swings and roundabouts.

 

[Marvin]

Right or wrong, I have consistently felt the non-cooperation charge is irrelevant. If CAS finds for UEFA on the principal issues they are such serious matters that non-cooperation is a minor but ultimately irrelevant aggravating factor. If CAS finds for City, there is no way (IMO) that it makes any meaningful sanction based on a wholly subjective "non-cooperation" charge. We know, for example, that City made substantial submissions and it is very hard to show that this was "non-cooperation".

it may not be the crux of the case against us but from the outside it appears to support City's claim that the UEFA process was prejudicial. City have already been sanctioned, and we face a 2nd review for a sponsorship that most reasonable football people would agree is fair value, and on top of that they say we didn't co-operate. Some trial.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I was there but I think 46 is young so swings and roundabouts.

They say you are only as young as the person you feel - so that makes me 42 thanks to the wife!!!