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.
Was also wondering about. It seems likely that UEFA saw the contracts with Etihad either under FFP or under the enhanced monitoring following the first settlement yet they are alleging that the money came from elsewhere and importantly I think directly from this other source thats certainly what it looks like in the emails. Cannot imagine contracts allowing this. Is not the insinuation that the contracts are fake. i guess we could have replaced the contracts with new ones allowing for the government to pay the funds and just not shown the new ones to UEFA. But fake contracts would be fraud right or of course we ar innocent and nothing changed and the emails are just out of context or wrong
 
The tax and criminal investigation points raised are, as has already been pointed out by our most knowledgable posters, red herrings. It’s hard enough getting your mind round the actual issue, without complicating it further with matters that are not and will not be an issue.
Winding back, all this kicked off as a result of the DS hacked emails. Whether or not they are inadmissible as evidence now or out of context was not initially the problem. UEFA, corrupt or not, had no choice in the face of that information but to investigate. As City have not challenged the validity of the content, then it is reasonable to require an explanation. Now in the realms of pure speculation if City said for example, why should we explain you have audited accounts etc.. or they are out of context if you read our 100 + page submission, UEFA’s next move, or that of people with vested interests, would be along the lines of well that’s all well and good but we now have grounds to suspect the previous settlement was arrived at after we (UEFA) had been misled therefore we are reopening the whole case and require further details of the presettlement accounts so City say “do one” that’s history ...l. then you have the issues of
Can the settlement be reopened or not
If so are hacked emails a sufficient basis
If so how do you refute what appears to be a cavalier attitude to FFP
Do the subsequent accounts and money trail tie in with the contents of the emails to a detrimental effect
Etc etc etc.
On the basis of the onus of proof it seems to me UEFA must be able to establish actual accounting entries consistent with the contents of the emails to demonstrate that although the accounts appear to comply, in the context of the emails they are inaccurate or worse.
Unless UEFA can bring factual substance to the contents of the emails and their effects on the factual accounts, then they cannot prove their case. Mere inconsistency (or there’s no smoke without fire) in this case should not be sufficient to satisfy the onus of proof.
Add to this the potential time limit, procedural questions and pre determination leaks it looks good for City
I am prepared to believe City on this - Soriano - we have done nothing wrong Khaldoon “I only deal with facts” in which case we should be ok.
Fingers crossed and apologies if the above is bollocks
 
Was also wondering about. It seems likely that UEFA saw the contracts with Etihad either under FFP or under the enhanced monitoring following the first settlement yet they are alleging that the money came from elsewhere and importantly I think directly from this other source thats certainly what it looks like in the emails. Cannot imagine contracts allowing this. Is not the insinuation that the contracts are fake. i guess we could have replaced the contracts with new ones allowing for the government to pay the funds and just not shown the new ones to UEFA. But fake contracts would be fraud right or of course we ar innocent and nothing changed and the emails are just out of context or wrong
Cool story bro.
 
They can try. Then UEFA can say that isn't the way Rule xxx works and CAS will decide whose case they prefer. Happens a lot in CAS cases that the sides have a different interpretation of a given rule. UEFA are usually found to be right on those!
I had an email exchange with UEFA referee supremo David Ellaray after our disallowed goal against Spurs. The law as applied by referees and VARs, and the explanation given by Swarbrick was inconsistent with that written in The Laws of the Game.

Elleray acknowledged this, and justified it by saying the interpretation was 'what football wants'.

I would have thought the written law would take precedent when challenged by an interpretation?
 
They can try. Then UEFA can say that isn't the way Rule xxx works and CAS will decide whose case they prefer. Happens a lot in CAS cases that the sides have a different interpretation of a given rule. UEFA are usually found to be right on those!
Thanks for reply, so they may be on good ground if they suggest we may have broken "the spirit of a rule" whereas we would would perhaps argue the rule was specifically targeted at us?
 
There must be some very strong evidence against us - surely the IC & AC had to have something to justify such a huge punishment, especially as we’d already been punished for the period concerned?
They can’t be so amateurish as to go to CAS unarmed.

We don't know what evidence - if any - UEFA have and we can't draw any conclusions about its strength. Asserting that their evidence must be strong is akin to asserting that the police must "know" that someone is guilty or they wouldn't arrested them! My question was to tolmie to see if he'd heard from his sources that City had put forward conclusive evidence that the cash came from the sources identified and that there was therefore no possibility of "disguised owner investment". My question began with a conditional : IF City have proved Etihad paid ALL they were to pay then, it follows, UEFA cannot prove otherwise. IF all that UEFA has is the emails - and PB seems convinced it's only the redacted copies that appeared in DS that they've got - it would appear impossible for these to be taken seriously when/if confronted by receipts and statements from Etihad. And there have been several audits of the accounts which should have established the true position, and have not raised any questions before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.