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.
Fallingbostel Blue said:
What happens to this evidence if Rui Pinto gets found guilty of extortion in a court of law? Is it still admissable or will it get destroyed? Am I right in thinking if he has received any cash for this information then he is not given "Whistleblower Status". The constant in this is that our Image and Reputation has been tarnised even if we are not convicted.
Click to expand...

Thats quite an interesting question. I would imagine only the judge can make any recommendation but i would imagine property, intellectual property or digital property should all be treated the same and it would seem equitable that it be returned to the owner. Depends how Portuguese law views these things. Same as other EU countries I would think.
Im not sure where Uefa would stand if it was ruled "Stolen" and to be returned to owner. If DS have copies of it (im not sure they should have).
The difficulty in any case for us is that material has now been released into the public domain by DS and once the cork is out of the bottle it aint going back.
I'm sure our lawyers have been over the DS revelations and we are still bullish that we have done nothing wrong. It remains to be played out. Ive said that Uefa have nowhere to go but to sanction us now and we will be referring it to CAS no doubt.
 
petrusha said:
I'm not as across this as I'd like to be, but isn't the crux of the issue that if ADUG have routed monies into Etihad to pay the sponsorship fees, that in effect is disguised shareholder funding by our owner to MCFC. So even though the amount was accepted as being a fair value, we'd nonetheless misrepresented the source of the funds and are thus guilty of misleading UEFA. And that's what they want to punish us for.

On the other hand, if ADUG merely used contacts within ADEC so that ADEC paid it, then it's not MCFC's shareholder or a party rerlated to it funneling the cash back into MCFC. How Etihad funds its deals and what relationship it, as an Abu Dhabi-owned company, has with an AbuDhabi public authority in terms of the provision of funds are neither here nor there. And Simon Pearce's reference to funding sources being supplied to Etihad by 'His Highness' is almost certainly the Crown Prince and not Mansour.

It was a matter of record in the States in the context of a state aid investigation in (I think) 2013 that ADEC was funding the Etihad sponsorship. And despite the Der Spiegel allegations that ADUG later funded them, the email they actually quoted simply referred to a figure with ADUG's game next to it with respect to the funds Etihad wasn't going to pay direct. In the absence of any further evidence and on its face, that's equally consistent, IMO, with ADUG procuring the funds as with ADUG supplying them.

It's hard to judge absolutely what's happening here because the reporting by clueless football journalists makes it so hard to tell. But this has been my hypothesis - and only if ADEC rather than ADUG has sourced the funds do the presumed allegations stick. If the funds have come from ADEC, that to me would account for why we're so bullish.

As I say, usual disclaimers apply. We could only know for sure what's happening if we had access to other documents that aren't in the public domain. And I'd be happy for this conjecture to be supplemented or corrected by people with different and/or superior insight.
Click to expand...

This is a very good post Peter and it echoes much of my thinking too. I find it difficult to believe that ADUG would've made up the shortfall when I'm sure ADEC would've had no issues funding it, so it makes very little sense to put ourselves in such an awkward position getting ADUG to fund it because if it ever got out, the shit would hit the fan. Of course, I could be wrong but I'd be utterly astonished if it turned out to be the case that our owner funded the shortfall. City have said all along that the e-mails are out of context and you have to wonder whether there are other e-mails that put the whole thing into the context that there's no wrongdoing. And if we are guilty - by that I mean we actually are guilty as opposed to being innocent but found guilty in a kangaroo court - then surely it would be a piece of piss to wriggle out of it as someone could easily knock up a phoney invoice showing the funds were paid to Etihad by ADEC and not ADUG?

My gut feeling is that Der Spiegel have cherry-picked some e-mails that can easily be spun/exaggerated to make it look like something dodgy is going on, while ignoring a whole raft of others that are totally benign or even put things into context. You only have to read the tone of the articles to see that it reads like a rant written by some bitter fucker from RAWK or Red Cafe lobbing unproven accusations around. Remember they also tried to claim that Sergio Ramos failed a drugs test following a CL final but when that article finally got published it turned out to be nothing of the sort. And UEFA are actually taking these clowns seriously.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Tolmie said it was United based on Samuel's piece. If you read the full Parrish piece it suggests it isn't United. The criteria didn't match.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the conclusion I drew too. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that it might be United - primarily because I wouldn't put it past them! - but as you say the criteria doesn't match. Without checking, it seems to match AC Milan a lot more and they're always wanting the FFP rules to be changed to suit them
 
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.