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.
Prestwich_Blue said:
That stuff from 'Phil in Gibraltar' is almost certainly bullshit but it's very convincing bullshit.

We're pretty sure that despite Tony Evans' nonsense, UEFA's case rested almost exclusively on the hacked emails. They may have relied on some of the stuff that PWC went through in 2014 (hence Evans' reference to evidence we had provided to them) as well but the emails were key.

We've always said as well that the emails were taken out of context. One or two looked very incriminating on the surface but we never saw the full chain. So there was an email that talked about ADUG being part of the money chain but we never saw any response to that, which could have said "None of this money is coming through ADUG" or "Yes but the ADUG contribution will be funded wholly from the Executive Council or the Crown Prince Court". We know that at least for the early part of the Etihad sponsorship, it was certainly funded by the Executive Council so that's entirely possible. UEFA may not like that but basically it's none of their business and there's nothing they can do.

So I could well imagine a scenario at CAS where UEFA claim that the Etihad ownership was disguised owner investment, on the basis of the emails. CAS then ask our legal team about that and we produce solid evidence of transactions from the Crown Prince Court or Executive Council regarding the Etihad Sponsorship that completely exonerate ADUG/Sheikh Mansour. So CAS turn to UEFA's legal team and ask them to comment and they say "But we've these hacked emails...".

It's an arbitration hearing, not a trial, so maybe even UEFA's legal team had to eventually accept, in front of the panel, that there was no disguised owner investment. Whether that's how it works I don't know but it's possible that we came out of that hearing 99% certain we'd won.
Click to expand...

The bit about CAS being annoyed at UEFA for the weakness of their claim is wishful thinking though.

Pep’s comments yesterday was all I needed to join you on the 99% club
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That stuff from 'Phil in Gibraltar' is almost certainly bullshit but it's very convincing bullshit.

We're pretty sure that despite Tony Evans' nonsense, UEFA's case rested almost exclusively on the hacked emails. They may have relied on some of the stuff that PWC went through in 2014 (hence Evans' reference to evidence we had provided to them) as well but the emails were key.

We've always said as well that the emails were taken out of context. One or two looked very incriminating on the surface but we never saw the full chain. So there was an email that talked about ADUG being part of the money chain but we never saw any response to that, which could have said "None of this money is coming through ADUG" or "Yes but the ADUG contribution will be funded wholly from the Executive Council or the Crown Prince Court". We know that at least for the early part of the Etihad sponsorship, it was certainly funded by the Executive Council so that's entirely possible. UEFA may not like that but basically it's none of their business and there's nothing they can do.

So I could well imagine a scenario at CAS where UEFA claim that the Etihad ownership was disguised owner investment, on the basis of the emails. CAS then ask our legal team about that and we produce solid evidence of transactions from the Crown Prince Court or Executive Council regarding the Etihad Sponsorship that completely exonerate ADUG/Sheikh Mansour. So CAS turn to UEFA's legal team and ask them to comment and they say "But we've these hacked emails...".

It's an arbitration hearing, not a trial, so maybe even UEFA's legal team had to eventually accept, in front of the panel, that there was no disguised owner investment. Whether that's how it works I don't know but it's possible that we came out of that hearing 99% certain we'd won.
Click to expand...
I had a case at the Court of Appeal where the Defendant was trying to Appeal a 7 figure judgment against them. At the end of the hearing their QC turned round to me (after his client had left) and our Counsel and said well done. A few weeks later we got the result that we all knew was most likely. We had won. This will be the same scenario.
 
,this is a long thread, I've just skipped 50 pages, why does it matter when our execs found out the result ? does it really matter what the fuck pearce had on the side line as his mascot(it was a horse) and who gives a fuck about old Latin teachers.

4227 pages and as usual 4216 is off topic bullshit, i dont give a fuck about your teachers, and i don't give a fuck about pearce,

oh and all the fucking lawyer types waggling their dicks


GOOD MORNING BLUE MOON :)
 
Blue Theatre said:
I'd love this to be true, but if any media organisation knew the result, and felt they could legally publish it, surely they would ?

It would still be an enormous scoop and bring hundreds of thousands of people to their website ... even if it wasn't the result their owners wanted ?

Also, the leak would embarrass City a little, and take the wind out of City's sails for our own press release on Monday. The journalists could also get their own perspective in first, before City.

So a more likely conclusion to draw from the media silence is that no one knows ?
Click to expand...

I did start my post with FWIW :) It might be worth nothing.

Maybe (incredibly in my view) that the decision isn't known but on the other hand it's hard to see what legal action could be taken against the NY Times for example if they did know and published.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
We aren’t at war with UEFA itself, but a faction within it driven by self-interest and determined to try and remove us as a competitor off the pitch, because they can’t manage it on the pitch.

Khladoon and Soriano have been explicit about this, and if we prevail tomorrow (which is still a very large ‘if’ for me), City will be looking to develop a strong relationship with a UEFA represented by sympathetic parties rather than direct enemies.

My sense is our accommodation of UEFA’s wishes on Friday was all about our future relationship with them - rather than our past.
Click to expand...

I get that we want a positive relationship with UEFA in the future but it still makes zero sense to accommodate their wishes when we have nothing to gain from it and even more to lose.

If there’s a chance we have lost then the club would have wanted this released on the Friday. That gives us two games before the big semi-final. No chance we’d risk a full week of negative headlines just to satisfy UEFA.

Of course, if the club are happy with the CAS outcome, it makes perfect sense to offer that olive branch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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.