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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Cool story bro.

Ooooh you are awful...

 

[Marvin]

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

The prosecution claim the sponsor financed only £8m of their sponsorship whilst the defence furnishes a contract for £60m and explains that the remainder was paid by the state in their capacity as underwriter of a state airline. Yet how did it get this far? I think UEFA were operating under pressure and that's why we are here. The entire media and court of opinion went against us and it just snowballed out of control. Will CAS be strong enough to stop it?

 

[slbsn]

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?

Lots of laws are open to debate as to their application to a set of facts.

 

[CC1]

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.

Guess it’s hard to believe that corrupt UEFA can be beaten by one isolated club but it’s certainly time this was resolved - in our favour

 

[Centurions]

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

Is it just my imagination or is your slip showing?

You seem determined to paint City as fraudulent criminals.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Guess it’s hard to believe that corrupt UEFA can be beaten by one isolated club but it’s certainly time this was resolved - in our favour

I’ve said this on a few occasions on this thread and I’ll repeat it.
Uefa were slapped down and lectured about not confusing their regs with actual law by the ECJ when they were challenged by one isolated Belgian footballer named jean-Marc Bosman after they thought that they were bigger than the law.
It may be that this extraordinary arrogance may still be a factor with them.

 

[ealing blue]

Sounds like we'll get the verdict w/c 13th July
https://www.france24.com/en/20200702-man-city-verdict-on-european-ban-expected-week-of-july-13

 

[HelloCity]

Sounds like we'll get the verdict w/c 13th July
https://www.france24.com/en/20200702-man-city-verdict-on-european-ban-expected-week-of-july-13

"The final decision will be made during the week of July 13," CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb told AFP.

 

[chaddblue]

"The final decision will be made during the week of July 13," CAS secretary general Matthieu Reeb told AFP.

FFS.. so we won’t hear potentially until 19th July.. another 17 days waiting

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Haha, another 20 pages of no one really knowing.