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

[Ric]

A ban would be disastrous for players like Spanish Dave who would have dearly loved to have won it.

Doubt it will impact him, tbh. Any ban would likely be for the season after next, and he'll leave next summer.

 

[flb]

Some journos are wanting to smell blood in the water and are simply chumming it to keep the narrative going when nothing is happening during the summer football months.

It had already been established this was more a marker by City, rather than a fillabuster.

As for Lipton, he wrote two months ago a back page lead entitled 'Ban City', which resulted in the club getting angry and essentially writing the Sun's inside spread follow-up the very next day.

Lipton insisted we would be banned by FIFA within 12 days for the illegal signing of underage players.

Whilst I expect that to happen (probably for Jan and next summer windows), it is clear his timelines are bollocks.

There is no illusion from City, this is a three-pronged attack to damage us both reputationally, and to hamstring us for a year or so for others to catch-up.

I find it very interesting Bayern have been keeping their powder dry in making an official bid for Sane.

They are being briefed by their pals at Uefa at what might be coming down the pipe while Leroy is on holiday and think they can kick us in the bollocks with a low ball offer.

Fucking Sane's family are in on it.

Is this ban threat having an impact on our incoming signings mate?

Not seen an update from you on the transfer forum for a while?

 

[Keeper!]

Yeah maybe but bottom line we aint going to get the market rate for sane or we fcuk him up for 2 years but history shows you we won do that. It will be sold for 70/80m this summer or we carry on as we are with sane contributing to our team and then leaving for nowt! One thing for certain seems he wont sign a new contract.

Can't see that , reportedly he is "only" on 65k a week, he could sign an extension for a minimum of double that.

I can't see him loosing out on that much cash over 2 years.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

When did they do that?

They've said they were unsurprised by the confidentiality failings, but biassed? I don't recall that.

In our reply to the New York Times leak City said:
“The New York Times report citing ‘people familiar with the case’ is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.
“Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.”

I interpret this as City essentially saying that the investigating committee is acting in bad faith. We are not just accusing them of being incompetent or even unfair. The key phrase is "Or both." We are not just denying the accusations. We are suggesting intentional bias. The words were carefully drawn up by lawyers. This narrative backs up our initial strongly-worded press release when the probe was launched and what Khaldoon said later in his end of season interview. We have given up on UEFA and that's why we went straight to CAS.

 

[waspish]

Can't see that , reportedly he is "only" on 65k a week, he could sign an extension for a minimum of double that.

I can't see him loosing out on that much cash over 2 years.

A contract has been on the table for him to sign for the last 18 months seems he is happy on his 60k week because if he had signed 18 months ago he would have earned around an extra 4/5m.

 

[Keeper!]

A contract has been on the table for him to sign for the last 18 months seems he is happy on his 60k week because if he had signed 18 months ago he would have earned around an extra 4/5m.

I am sure City would give him near 100K week pay rise, 2 years that's near 10M plus bonus's.

That some risk not to take, any footballer is one injury away from retirement, is he or his mother going to take that risk?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

In our reply to the New York Times leak City said:
“The New York Times report citing ‘people familiar with the case’ is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.
“Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.”

I interpret this as City essentially saying that the investigating committee is acting in bad faith. We are not just accusing them of being incompetent or even unfair. The key phrase is "Or both." We are not just denying the accusations. We are suggesting intentional bias. The words were carefully drawn up by lawyers. This narrative backs up our initial strongly-worded press release when the probe was launched and what Khaldoon said later in his end of season interview. We have given up on UEFA and that's why we went straight to CAS.

Thanks. I hadn't read it as you did.

I don't think that strongly suggests much other that they are irritated that somewhere in the process there is a breach of confidentiality. I don't think it overtly refers to rivals or committee, I think it refers the media as being intent on damage.

I don't think there is any implication that the IC are biassed in their action - any such implication would have been far more obvious, I think. However, I also think it would have been unwise to say it publically, and thus they wouldn't have.

I think most accept that there is pressure on UEFA to investigate and charge if they can find a justifiable reason; I don't think that makes the IC corrupted - instead, I'd put that down to referring to the pressure to have the investigation started at the outset, and to do something by the date. I'm not finding the right words now for clarity, but I think there's a difference between having the outcome specifically directed, and direction to try having an outcome (which would need hitting the statutory date).

 

[citytilllidie]

The incumbent head of UEFA, Alexander Ceferin, stated in December that there was 'a concrete case' against Manchester City, and that they will 'come down hard on them, if found guilty by the AC'.

That being more than 6 months ago, why the delay?

I'm presuming that with the notice City sent to CAS, the UEFA mob have decided that they had better look at all of the documents before proceeding with the lynching.

 

[Chi-town blues]

It's Lipton

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/9275939/man-city-champions-league-ban-despite-cas-uefa/

I’m not clicking. Is he brewing shit again ?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The incumbent head of UEFA, Alexander Ceferin, stated in December that there was 'a concrete case' against Manchester City, and that they will 'come down hard on them, if found guilty by the AC'.

That being more than 6 months ago, why the delay?

I'm presuming that with the notice City sent to CAS, the UEFA mob have decided that they had better look at all of the documents before proceeding with the lynching.

I think that 'concrete case' was a bad translation of "specific case". He put no timeframe on it because (a) he's not stupid and (b) the IC would take their own view of it and decide.

Ceferin did not imply that this was a cast iron case.