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.
DrBlueBob said:
I have a question for the lawyerly types. If I have a television for example and someone steals said television I am now without a television, (let's assume for the purposes of this that I only had one tv to start with).
If my emails are hacked and "stolen" I am still in full possession of my emails, (ergo no material loss?). Is there any legal difference in this scenario and if so will it impact in any way on the current Der Spiegel affair?
Click to expand...
My guess would be the crime isn't the fact you're without a TV, but someone stole it. If someone steals emails, even though you still have them, the act of stealing them is the crime.
 
Manc in London said:
Based on our press releases, unless I have missed something, we are unhappy with the procedural fairness, not FFP. I think the club are not that bothered about FFP, as such. We are now in a financial position where we can be very competitive and not have to worry about compliance with FFP.

Can we even be sure that UEFA want to punish us? Maybe this is playing out to a beneficial endgame for both ourselves and UEFA, giving the impression to some influential clubs - maybe they are the only parties who want to see us punished - that the process has been exhausted.
Click to expand...
They are investigating us for ‘procedural anomalies’- we are accusing them of the very same.
Totally agree about your view on a mutually suitable agreement.
UEFA can shrug their shoulders and say ‘we did our best.... but technicalities etc. meant no prosecution’.
Plus the added bonus for fans of rags, dippers and the rabid press is that they can point to this and say ‘well..you got away with it on a technicality’ and we must still be guilty of something.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
They are investigating us for ‘procedural anomalies’- we are accusing them of the very same.
Totally agree about your view on a mutually suitable agreement.
UEFA can shrug their shoulders and say ‘we did our best.... but technicalities etc. meant no prosecution’.
Plus the added bonus for fans of rags, dippers and the rabid press is that they can point to this and say ‘well..you got away with it on a technicality’ and we must still be guilty of something.
Click to expand...

I've said before that I could see that being the best option for UEFA - it's difficult to see any other good way out, assuming that there is no bloody glove of City's guilt.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I've said before that I could see that being the best option for UEFA - it's difficult to see any other good way out, assuming that there is no bloody glove of City's guilt.
Click to expand...
Highly probable.
It would suit a lot of people. They could still call us guilty without anyone knowing exactly what we’re guilty of or having to prove it.
That way the narrative can continue.

I’d rather the Sheik took them on rather than accept that.

It doesn’t matter that Liverpool avoided punishment for breaches they were guilty of close to the same time, purely on a technicality.
That technicality being they didn’t qualify so weren’t in the competition.

No matter. That would never come into the story. The propaganda machine could keep rolling with the narrative of what City are guilty of shifting with the needs of the cartel’s puppets.
 
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.