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.
Well nothing hidden during the election & fallout and the big UEFA guy at out last two CL games.... something is going on, wonder when he last saw a club play twice on the bounce?

Do hope in true Simpsons style (Are we there yet?) We just keep saying over & over again 'We'll see you in court'.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Well nothing hidden during the election & fallout and the big UEFA guy at out last two CL games.... something is going on, wonder when he last saw a club play twice on the bounce?

Do hope in true Simpsons style (Are we there yet?) We just keep saying over & over again 'We'll see you in court'.
Click to expand...

The fact he was there, sat in the best seats cozying up to the top brass, and no doubt being wined and dined .. gives me hope that there is no conflict going on behind the scenes and things are heading towards an outcome we are happy with
 
chaddblue said:
The fact he was there, sat in the best seats cozying up to the top brass, and no doubt being wined and dined .. gives me hope that there is no conflict going on behind the scenes and things are heading towards an outcome we are happy with
Click to expand...
It might also be a signal to the plotters.....sorry, guys, not this time.
 
Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich paid £247m into the club last season but it still made an overall loss of £96.6m. Surely this means they have fallen foul of FFP?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich paid £247m into the club last season but it still made an overall loss of £96.6m. Surely this means they have fallen foul of FFP?
Click to expand...

Potentially, but:
- you only fail over a 3 year period, not a 1 year period
- there will be some exempt expenditure (new stadium development costs, for example)

What was the 247M for?? That's a heck of a lot - the stadium, maybe.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Potentially, but:
- you only fail over a 3 year period, not a 1 year period
- there will be some exempt expenditure (new stadium development costs, for example)

What was the 247M for?? That's a heck of a lot - the stadium, maybe.
Click to expand...
They also sold Hazard which I assume was after these accounts were produced (£90m) so that offsets this loss.
 
Marvin said:
They also sold Hazard which I assume was after these accounts were produced (£90m) so that offsets this loss.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would certainly make a difference over the 3 year period.

I guess in that period they probably bought Pulisic and Kepa - about 130M just for those two.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Yes, that would certainly make a difference over the 3 year period.

I guess in that period they probably bought Pulisic and Kepa - about 130M just for those two.
Click to expand...

The calculation is based on amortisation of the players value. So the lumps and bumps of ins and out dont really impact as much as you would expect. And as above, lots of expenditure is excluded so hard to know the real position.

As to why we 'took a pinch' I assume that we had a decent argument but they make the rules, to get in a fight is not a good strategic move for either party (if we beat them in court it would not have been the end of the issue and you could argue the negative PR would be equally as bad as just accepting a big fine). I think the 'pinch' was basically a settlement where we accepted a sanction we could live with (small fine and squad restriction) on the basis we did not challenge through CAS or anything else. My guess is the same arguments are ongoing now around teh legal basis for anything they want to do and if we accept a sanction or fight it. My guess is that the leaked material can not be used in court and as we accepted a sanction already they have little ground to stand on - but that is a guess. None of us know what they have.
 
Gaudion M said:
The calculation is based on amortisation of the players value. So the lumps and bumps of ins and out dont really impact as much as you would expect. And as above, lots of expenditure is excluded so hard to know the real position.

As to why we 'took a pinch' I assume that we had a decent argument but they make the rules, to get in a fight is not a good strategic move for either party (if we beat them in court it would not have been the end of the issue and you could argue the negative PR would be equally as bad as just accepting a big fine). I think the 'pinch' was basically a settlement where we accepted a sanction we could live with (small fine and squad restriction) on the basis we did not challenge through CAS or anything else. My guess is the same arguments are ongoing now around teh legal basis for anything they want to do and if we accept a sanction or fight it. My guess is that the leaked material can not be used in court and as we accepted a sanction already they have little ground to stand on - but that is a guess. None of us know what they have.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know about amortisation on the accounts - wouldn't the outlay relate to the amount Abramovich is reported to have put in? A bit like the Sheikh putting in 60M a couple of times, one instance of which I think has been suggested was short term to cover signing Laporte (I might be wrong on that).

And I agree, the 'pinch' was a negotiated way out when it happened. There isn't really a court right now on the leaks, or it would have even less legs. Some isolated one-line emails prove nothing. I suspect UEFA can investigate anything they believe they have cause to, but they may still have hit a wall they can't break down to prove anything.
 
Blue Mist said:
and yet no one questions where he got and still gets his many many millions from. Strange that.
Click to expand...
Oil rights from Russia used to be his main income. Great mate of Putin so managed to survive the Oligarch purge that eliminated most others that benefited from the Russian breakup.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Oil rights from Russia used to be his main income. Great mate of Putin so managed to survive the Oligarch purge that eliminated most others that benefited from the Russian breakup.
Click to expand...
He survived because he gave a load of money back.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Potentially, but:
- you only fail over a 3 year period, not a 1 year period
- there will be some exempt expenditure (new stadium development costs, for example)

What was the 247M for?? That's a heck of a lot - the stadium, maybe.
Click to expand...

They seem to get away without people noticing their actual spending on players these days?

They spent £70m on that clown goalkeeper, £55m on that snake Jorginho.

Then there was Pulisic, Bakayoko, Batshuai or whatever.

Morata, Kennedy. They have spent and wasted fortunes these last couple of years.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Potentially, but:
- you only fail over a 3 year period, not a 1 year period
- there will be some exempt expenditure (new stadium development costs, for example)

What was the 247M for?? That's a heck of a lot - the stadium, maybe.
Click to expand...
Maybe they have gone full dipper and write off £50 million for someone drawing a stadium plan on the back of a fag packet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top