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

[Jazzman]

If we win this we should have a collective, worldwide and virtual pissup to celebrate !

 

[Jazzman]

"UEFA can hit us with bans and fines, founded on nothing but hearsay, following a farcial process where the outcome was given from day 1, top it up with leaking information to the media over the time of the "process" thus harming our reputation, and all we get is the chance to prove that their unjust accusations and decisions were wrong?" THAT IS PRETTY MUCH HOW IT WORKS

So based on this CAS process is it correct to say that we get nothing but a nullifying of UEFA's decision, in the best case? YES (AND PERHAPS SOME OF OUR LEGAL COSTS)

Thanks again mate!

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Pep rocking a "Love Simone Hate Fascism" t-shirt :)

Questions about next Monday are at 9:50. Body Language? Down and a big sigh after one of his answers. But who knows if it means anything...




This afternoon's confidence score: 3/10

 

[CWMCFC]

Our owner has publicly been called a liar and cheat, his club's reputation hammered from one and all, enough!

WE will prove we have done nothing wrong and stop the tide of abuse that has gone on far too long.

Even if we win, the damage is already done - we'll still be called liars, cheats and the reputation will be much of the same. People will just be coming out saying that we won purely because we could buy expensive lawyers, we bribed CAS, we got out on a technicality etc. No one is going to be queuing up cap in hand to say sorry to City for dragging the clubs name in the mud.

 

[slbsn]

Not sure about that. If it is de novo and "any party" must discharge the burden of proof, then uefa surely need to do that. Arbitration must be even handed.
Hate to challenge @projectriver, what do I know?!

My answer wasn't really complete/clear. There are matters such as the proportionality of punishment where the appellant has the burden (as in the case that started this sub-discussion) - we have to show it was disproportionate and we won't be able to. On the substantive matters (did we actually breach), I think UEFA have the burden of proof. I don't see it being affected by it being de novo.

 

[tonea2003]

Even if we win, the damage is already done - we'll still be called liars, cheats and the reputation will be much of the same. People will just be coming out saying that we won purely because we could buy expensive lawyers, we bribed CAS, we got out on a technicality etc. No one is going to be queuing up cap in hand to say sorry to City for dragging the clubs name in the mud.

only to the the great unwashed maybe but those who wield the power will know/have always known the real story

 

[KS55]

Agree with most of that. Still worried we might’ve done something stupid though - typical City and all that!

By the way, I have to ask you this - have you heard anything from your sources?

That's my only doubt. Have we done something stupid, a typical City bollock?

 

[HelloCity]

Pep rocking a "Love Simone Hate Fascism" :)

Questions about next Monday are at 9:50. Body Language? Down and a big sigh after one of his answers. But who knows if it means anything...

I actually think he knows from watching that.

The way he says “after that (the statement), I will give my opinion” makes it sound like he knows what he thinks but he can’t say yet.

Now if he does know and he keeps mentioning qualifying for next season’s CL...

 

[KS55]

My answer wasn't really complete/clear. There are matters such as the proportionality of punishment where the appellant has the burden (as in the case that started this sub-discussion) - we have to show it was disproportionate and we won't be able to. On the substantive matters (did we actually breach), I think UEFA have the burden of proof. I don't see it being affected by it being de novo.

Thanks for that, I feel better now!

 

[slbsn]

Thanks for that, I feel better now!

I think the test is - who is asserting the other is wrong. UEFA say City are wrong on the way sponsorship has been presented/submitted. So it is UEFA's onus to prove it. City say UEFA are wrong to investigate 2016 now so City have the onus to prove it. City say UEFA are wrong in the sanction so City have the onus to prove it.

By analogy, IOC have to prove the failure of a drug test, the athlete has to prove the punishment is unfair to overturn it.