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

[bobbyowenquiff]

There is no connection between Fenway group and the NYT.

This is the kind of tinfoil bullshit that makes a mockery of legitimate grivances and concerns with both UEFA & media coverage of City.

This is true. The journalist is just doing his job and the New York Times has run rings round the UK media on the FFP issue. It is clear though that someone from the UEFA investigations committee is leaking information damaging to us to the New York Times. It is likely that the individual or organisation concerned is not well disposed towards City. We already know from published letters that our commercial rivals have been lobbying UEFA and the Premier League to take action against us. Our main commercial rivals are based in the North West and have American owners with strong links to the US media. They also have key people within the UEFA organisation.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The article has been written presumably to out Leterme as a weak willed excuse maker for clubs who break FFP, and paints the Portuguese judge as the legitimate, fair arbiter of who's following the rules. Whoever leaked the information, we could assume, wants to put pressure on Leterme to be hardline for once and actually do something.

The problem with that assumption is that Leterme is already an enemy of Manchester City, who according to the club is corrupt and decides cases based on who he wants to pass/fail. If Cunha is actually what the article describes him as, then he will rule with City if we are in the right, even against Leterme's wishes. Releasing this article isn't going to add pressure to Leterme because he's already hell bent on failing City.



A lot of people in this thread are saying this article is basically confirming the Portuguese judge is going to fuck us, but if you look at it objectively, it's actually saying that José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues is a proper judge (12 years on the ECJ) who doesn't follow Leterme's bullshit and has a track record of speaking up when something doesn't add up.

And if he's prepared to overrule Leterme on saying PSG are innocent, he might well overrule Leterme saying City are guilty.

I agree. I thought it may even be a pre-emptive piece to pave the way for a "nothing happening" outcome, with UEFA looking to get out of a hole.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

David Gill was once a CEO at Man Utd, then he left to pursue his interests at the FA, Eufa, and FIFA, does he then have no connection, other than historically to Utd. Or do some historical connections have a relevance in today's real World, connections that we have no direct proof or link to. Or is the NYT at the cutting edge of Soccers devious politics.

Gill is still a Utd director. It's quite a lot different.

 

[Metalartin]

The article has been written presumably to out Leterme as a weak willed excuse maker for clubs who break FFP, and paints the Portuguese judge as the legitimate, fair arbiter of who's following the rules. Whoever leaked the information, we could assume, wants to put pressure on Leterme to be hardline for once and actually do something.

The problem with that assumption is that Leterme is already an enemy of Manchester City, who according to the club is corrupt and decides cases based on who he wants to pass/fail. If Cunha is actually what the article describes him as, then he will rule with City if we are in the right, even against Leterme's wishes. Releasing this article isn't going to add pressure to Leterme because he's already hell bent on failing City.



A lot of people in this thread are saying this article is basically confirming the Portuguese judge is going to fuck us, but if you look at it objectively, it's actually saying that José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues is a proper judge (12 years on the ECJ) who doesn't follow Leterme's bullshit and has a track record of speaking up when something doesn't add up.

And if he's prepared to overrule Leterme on saying PSG are innocent, he might well overrule Leterme saying City are guilty.

That thought crossed my mind but we are all just speculating and I don't share the same level of optimism.

You say he was siding against Leterme but it could be he was siding against PSG. In other words rather than being a proper judge who makes the tough calls, it could also be that he knows which decisions will win him favour in the public domain. If that's the case, we know that siding with City even if the facts show it as the right thing to do, will not win him any favour, to put it mildly.

What ever they decide in this adjudicatory chamber(what is the hold-up?), we know if they try and screw us over, the next stop is the CAS. I was more concerned that he had something to do with the CAS.

 

[blueparrot]

What ever they decide in this adjudicatory chamber(what is the hold-up?), we know if they try and screw us over, the next stop is the CAS. I was more concerned that he had something to do with the CAS.

My guess is they know if they’d banned us this summer it would need to be for next season and our appeal to CAS would freeze it, leaving them open to claims from ourselves or the team that were lined up to take our place
By waiting until this years competition is up and running they can announce a ban for the following season giving CAS plenty of time to overule as they know the evidence is unsafe , so UEFA don’t get blamed and no other teams are affected, as it all gets quietly dropped. As I said just my guess why the delay.

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

There is no connection between Fenway group and the NYT.

This is the kind of tinfoil bullshit that makes a mockery of legitimate grivances and concerns with both UEFA & media coverage of City.

You realise they used to be shareholders and that they have a joint venture due to the baseball in new York

 

[Coatigan]

You realise they used to be shareholders and that they have a joint venture due to the baseball in new York

this

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

You realise they used to be shareholders and that they have a joint venture due to the baseball in new York

The Fenway group may not have a stake in the New York Times any more but as a major US sports franchise they have strong relationships with the US media and especially journalists and the big players at the New York Times and Boston Globe. They talk to each other all the time. You can be sure for example that Fenway is very interested in what our owners are doing with New York City FC. They see us as a commercial threat in the UK with Liverpool FC as well as in the USA. They are doing everything they can to undermine us behind the scenes.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

My guess is they know if they’d banned us this summer it would need to be for next season and our appeal to CAS would freeze it, leaving them open to claims from ourselves or the team that were lined up to take our place
By waiting until this years competition is up and running they can announce a ban for the following season giving CAS plenty of time to overule as they know the evidence is unsafe , so UEFA don’t get blamed and no other teams are affected, as it all gets quietly dropped. As I said just my guess why the delay.

The delay must be because of the escalating Ruis Pinto case which has opened a huge can of worms. UEFA don't know what the outcome will be and can't know the full implications of the data hacking till this case has been resolved. It would be a huge risk for UEFA to take action on the basis of the hacked information about City which has been published so far. They would be financially devastated if they get it wrong. The massive data cache leaked included rape allegations against Ronaldo. That case was quietly dropped by the US police this week and didn't get a lot of media coverage, presumably because Ronaldo is now suing some media outlets.

 

[asahartford1]

Gill is still a Utd director. It's quite a lot different.

I chose Gill as an example as you very rarely, if ever hear that Gill is still a director. I never hear it on Sky, or in the media, United themselves never mention the fact. To presume NYT and Fenway do not have joint or similar interests is naive . Does not matter when the shares were sold.