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.

CC1

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Jun 2009
Messages
3,551
I also keep thinking they can’t be so amateurish to only have the emails as evidence, I know there is also mention of using our own submitted documents against us.

I then remember Platini took a one million plus euro payment direct into his bank account with zero supporting evidence of why he received the payment, which to this day he fails to understand how it lost him his job, so maybe they are just a set of corrupt arrogant cùntz who think they can do as they wish!

I really hope so
 

bobbyowenquiff

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Jan 2007
Messages
3,854
Age
61
Location
Lancashire
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
That's interesting. I wasn't aware that we "took the pinch" but didn't accept we had breached FFP as part of the 2014 settlement. The detail on the leaks during the investigation last year are also very interesting. Those five leaks could only have come from the IC either directly or via a third party who had spoken to someone in the IC. The immediate response from UEFA (just 24 hours after the first complaint from City) denying any leaks was a huge blunder. They made no attempt to even consider the complaint from City. If this doesn't show to CAS that UEFA were acting in "bad faith" then nothing will.
 

Centurions

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Sep 2012
Messages
10,995
Location
Not 100% sure at the moment...
We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these
FFS, just how many times do you need to be told?

The tax man couldn't give a rats arse whether it's related party or not and I'm damn sure that us paying more tax isn't going to annoy them too much.
 

WRicko

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Jan 2016
Messages
600
Age
27
Not sure where to start with this but here goes:
  • CAS aren't "pursuing" us. They're the appeal body of last resort, based on the procedure set out by UEFA and that has to be folowed by all clubs under the UEFA umbrella. You can elect to go to CAS once you've exhausted all the UEFA-mandated courses of action, so it's our decision to do that. I suspect you meant UEFA
  • We've not been accused of anything criminal. We've been accused of breaking the financial rules of the governing body of European football and those aren't laws that attract criminal charges. Even if it's found we broke those rules, that doesn't imply we've deliberately been party to knowingly committing criminal offences. A criminal offence would be, like in the Wirecard case, claiming you had money in the bank that you didn't actually have. If we'd reported £50m a year from Etihad yet there's only £5m going through the books, that's false accounting. What we appear to have been accused of is Etihad only paying £5m and someone else paying the other £45m.
  • We're not remotely liable to tax, because of our accumulated losses (over £300m bottom line currently and probably more for tax purposes), and are unlikely to be liable for many years to come.
I love your posts and I bow to your superior knowledge but other people had mentioned what I had said in the past

but in response to your response not saying CAS are pursuing us but they can in theory up hold the UEFA decision yet I cannot see how without a criminal investigation into us.

Would it not be a criminal offense to say to Auditors a governing body the tax man another set of auditors and sports tribunal that you received money from x when you actually received it from y to do so for financial gain. Also what about getting round or not declaring related party transactions. Given that that seems to follow from the alleged inflation and miss declaring of where fund have come from

Did not say we are liable for tax I was saying the tax man has probably benefitted since we are alleged to have hidden owner investment through inflated sponsorship leading to a few years profits and few years lower losses
 

bobbyowenquiff

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Jan 2007
Messages
3,854
Age
61
Location
Lancashire
CAS would normally give the findings to both parties a few days prior to publishing as it was their intention to publish on the 10th can we assume City and Uefa know the outcome?
I am a blind optimist when it comes to City but I think the positive body language from our club since the hearing suggests that we certainly think we have won. There are always potential pitfalls in any legal battle but I believe CAS is a fair body and will be honest in its handling of this case. No one in their right mind can possibly believe UEFA is anything other than a corrupted organisation (even Ceferin himself knows this and is trying to change things). The three Judges/Barristers at CAS are not stupid people.
 

bobbyowenquiff

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Jan 2007
Messages
3,854
Age
61
Location
Lancashire

projectriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2007
Messages
920
I love your posts and I bow to your superior knowledge but other people had mentioned what I had said in the past

but in response to your response not saying CAS are pursuing us but they can in theory up hold the UEFA decision yet I cannot see how without a criminal investigation into us.

Would it not be a criminal offense to say to Auditors a governing body the tax man another set of auditors and sports tribunal that you received money from x when you actually received it from y to do so for financial gain. Also what about getting round or not declaring related party transactions. Given that that seems to follow from the alleged inflation and miss declaring of where fund have come from

Did not say we are liable for tax I was saying the tax man has probably benefitted since we are alleged to have hidden owner investment through inflated sponsorship leading to a few years profits and few years lower losses
I've resisted the reply, but here we go. This is not a criminal process, court or allegation.

Is it possible that a criminal body (say the Serious Fraud Office in the UK) could investigate the club for fraudulent accounts? Yes - its possible but unlikely.

But that is a million miles from where we are now. Right now, all this is a sporting body's disciplinary finding being challenged in the sporting arbitrator. That's it.

UEFA are seemingly making some strong allegations and I do think CAS will think twice about whether they have the evidence to support UEFA's finding but criminality is just not in the mix right now and should be ignored.

Forget the tax part. It's a red herring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account?

Register now!