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

[bluethai]

You not even trying are you. This is essentially a regional paper. Maybe 1 in every 1,000 who reads the times will actually bother to read the article. It's a "well I've heard" story, nothing more. The fact that you pumping up it's value gives the impression that aren't and never have been a blue.

Agreed

 

[SWP's back]

Unfortunately, UEFA are currently allied much more closely to Qatar than the UAE.

And guess who don’t like each other very much?

UAE doesn’t like Qatar. Not vice versa. It’s the UAE that’s imposing an illegal ground, air and sea blockade on Qatar. Flying from Qatar to South Africa now takes an hour and a half longer.

And it’s entirely on the fault of the UAE for being KSA’s bitch on this.

 

[yeseye]

Here’s how it will pan out.

a. City kicked out.
b. Arsenal ‘win’ europa league.
c. Utd shoe horned in to replace us.

 

[nmc]

Interesting isn’t it that we beat a club whose owner is American and now a new scoop has appeared, in the New York Times no less, saying we’re going to be banned.

Well get it over with you ****s; enjoy having a champions competition without the champions of the strongest league in the world.

Well they’ve got a CL final 8this year with two teams who didn’t get within 25 points of the title last year - hardly credible but the media won’t report that.

 

[nmc]

Seems pretty obvious UEFA are doing this simply because they feel they *have* to or FFP loses all credibility as being enforceable, especially in the eyes of the the traditional elite clubs who UEFA are so reliant on and seem to be the rocket fuel for this whole thing.

UEFA also know that the ruling is legally unenforceable at CAS given the frail evidence but simply have no alternative than to be seen to pursue this tough sanctioning for the above reason. We meanwhile are aware we can successfully challenge the ruling at CAS but also are fully aware that there is a difference between a positive legal outcome and coming away with a positive public perception, the latter of which - let's face it - is pretty much the reason Abu Dhabi bought us in the first place.

Ultimately, disregarding that FFP is a sham concotion by the traditional elite to close the threat of legitimate new competition, and that these latest leaks are not legally incrimintating, they nevertheless are enough to prove in the court of public perception that we diddled the FFP numbers, particularly when coupled with the lack of denials we've heard from the club hierarchy itself.

So basically it's all heading towards a damaging CAS battle that will further greatly hurt our public image, UEFA's pockets and ultimately FFP's credibility, but also that neither party is currently able to get away from. Best guess is a lot of tough guy posturing for the next few months, followed by the very beginnings of a court battle, swiftly followed by an out of court settlement "punishment" without prejudice for us which we will ensure has no tangible impact on our progress.

Normally I’d agree but we’ve been down that road... taken a pinch but it wasn’t the end of it; so I don’t see how our owners can do a deal with an organisation as weak and corrupt as UEFA.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Talk about an "agenda." This is posted without context.

NY Times sold their shares years ago.



Let's not contribute to the same problem we rail against ourselves.

Quite right. From now on could people please refer to the NYT as "former" major shareholder in Liverpool FC.

 

[manimanc]

How much will it affect our revenue if we're banned from CL for a season ? What likely effect will it have on our transfers ?

Absolutely none as we're already spuds deep for a couple of players already.
Don't worry my blue friend.

 

[KS55]

It was the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that decided PSG's fate. They sided with PSG by stating that any previous sanctions were, in their own words, "final and binding". UEFA CANNOT impose sanctions over matters for which a settlement has already taken place. We may have to pursue the matter through CAS but would ultimately win.

I'm not sure that this is correct. If UEFA's case is that our previous settlement was finalised based on false evidence given by us, it is likely that they will be allowed to revisit it. Alternatively, if they can prove that our evidence was false, they can simply sanction us for lying, without re opening the old case.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

I can't it all - I assume that says something along the lines of J W Henry is second largest shareholder of the NYT?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If you read the NY Times article, which I am sure you have, it's interesting that they say the focus of the UEFA investigation has shifted from financial 'irregularity' to misleading information. I think that was the only thing significant in the article.

I doubt whether City have communicated or assisted UEFA's investigation, preferring to keep our powder dry.

I agree. This is the key point, and the rest is just noise for now.
I'm sure that the reporting about UEFA lawyers not being convinced they can make it stick is true.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Ban us for a year then UEFA, we can just concentrate on another possible domestic treble being retained

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Which is exactly right. In the open forum of a tribunal, it would be alleged that funding provided by Etihad was in fact sourced via a private wealth fund set up by the club's ownership. The evidence against us appears to be a number of historical emails about which nobody knows the context in which they were sent. The club's ownership would deny that the funding provided by Etihad was sourced from the private wealth fund. It would be argued that the emails were never acted upon after regard was given to the rules. UEFA would then ask Etihad to provide accounting evidence relating to how they are able to operate as a commercial entity. Etihad, in no uncertain terms, would decline the request. The tribunal would find that UEFA have been unable to secure meaningful evidence about how Etihad funds its commercial enterprises. The tribunal would find that such information goes way beyond the remit of an organisation whose job it is to regulate European football. The tribunal would find that UEFA reached a settlement over the same matter several years earlier. The action brought against Manchester City would therefore be comprehensively defeated.

All well and good. It does potentially involve lying to said tribunal however. Also, I don’t know whether or not CAS, or indeed - looking further ahead - the Courts, operates on a “balance of probabilities” or “credibility” basis. Certainly if I were an opposition brief, I would be asking for proof of this change of heart in the form of subsequent emails. Furthermore, we probably do not know the full extent of the information that little shitbag hacker stole from the server, so claiming there are no further records of anyone counter-commanding the content of what we do know was stolen, might be a risky game (the disclosure process notwithstanding), not to mention being frankly unbelievable.
UEFA probably don’t want to go down this path in the first place, but the G14 are the tail that wags the dog. Leaks to the press of this nature will be ongoing, I know that, if only to put pressure on whatever legislative body will eventually hear our case, to turn us into the footballing equivalent of the Bulger killers, whom no Court would want to be seen to release. Consequently, if we do go after them I hope it’s for the full extent of the owner’s investment in the club, ie billions rather than millions. Fanciful I suspect though.
What I do know is that whilst some of the fans might not be arsed about the CL, it is integral to our future, cos players like Bernie, Leroy, Laporte, Sterling, Aguero etc want to play in it, and if we are banned for 2 or 3 seasons I could see several of them wanting to leave. Never forget what the G14 wants. It’s the total destruction of our club and our threat. Punishing us, but leaving us in a position we can still come back from, will not be an option for them.

 

[Millennium]

UAE doesn’t like Qatar. Not vice versa. It’s the UAE that’s imposing an illegal ground, air and sea blockade on Qatar. Flying from Qatar to South Africa now takes an hour and a half longer.

And it’s entirely on the fault of the UAE for being KSA’s bitch on this.

Your judgment is wrong. Qatar is using Muslim Brotherhood and Al Jazeera TV channels to disrupt and attack the political structure in some Arab Countries, especially the GCC countries, pretending to call for freedom of speech while the same is not applied in Qatar. Al Jazeera TV talks about everything in other countries except Qatar. KSA, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt have all warned Qatar many times but without any success. Thus, the option was to try to isolate Qatar, but Qatar due to its relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood managed to establish aligns with the Erdogan regime and Iran, and therefore, the problem reached stalemate status

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

All well and good. It does potentially involve lying to said tribunal however. Also, I don’t know whether or not CAS, or indeed - looking further ahead - the Courts, operates on a “balance of probabilities” or “credibility” basis. Certainly if I were an opposition brief, I would be asking for proof of this change of heart in the form of subsequent emails. Furthermore, we probably do not know the full extent of the information that little shitbag hacker stole from the server, so claiming there are no further records of anyone counter-commanding the content of what we do know was stolen, might be a risky game (the disclosure process notwithstanding), not to mention being frankly unbelievable.
UEFA probably don’t want to go down this path in the first place, but the G14 are the tail that wags the dog. Leaks to the press of this nature will be ongoing, I know that, if only to put pressure on whatever legislative body will eventually hear our case, to turn us into the footballing equivalent of the Bulger killers, whom no Court would want to be seen to release. Consequently, if we do go after them I hope it’s for the full extent of the owner’s investment in the club, ie billions rather than millions. Fanciful I suspect though.
What I do know is that whilst some of the fans might not be arsed about the CL, it is integral to our future, cos players like Bernie, Leroy, Laporte, Sterling, Aguero etc want to play in it, and if we are banned for 2 or 3 seasons I could see several of them wanting to leave. Never forget what the G14 wants. It’s the total destruction of our club and our threat. Punishing us, but leaving us in a position we can still come back from, will not be an option for them.

I agree, i would go down the route that they are trying to get our actual owner to eventually pull out of the club by continually looking to sanction us. That is what i think their true end game is

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Would our accountants at the time also not get involved as their integrity would also be called into question? How could city have lied about the amount of sponsorship when it officially gets audited? Also then, would Etihad also not take action against uefa regarding the same point?

I'm not sure this applies.
The accountants wouldn't be interested where the money came from, just that it came in. They would have no power/interest to go beyond 'Etihad deal X million, confirmed',

The 'lie' isn't that Etihad gave us X million. It's alleged that Etihad had a large percentage of that X million funnelled into them by the owner (or related organisation), and that this means more cash came from the owner than is allowed, and that City hid this.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

The NYT still seem to partner with Fenway Group on their American sports enterprises
Given that there is very little new or quoted evidence, it wouldn't surprise me if it is a Liverpool inspired hacket job

You don't lose your contacts or acquaintances made over night

 

[Vish]

nothing coming of this nonsense

 

[George Hannah]

I don't have the link to the article , but there was an article in the telegraph , which stated Liverpool reached out to city and said that the above was nonsense and they didn't ask or push the premier league for anything

John Henry reached out to us alright, along with the Glasers, Kroenke and Joe Lewis lol. Your alleged 'Violation' update is a crock.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Whilst I agree with everyone that FFP is as bent as fuck and more or less entirely framed with us in mind you have to say the club has fucked up hugely in this. Clearly the board and our owner looked at ways FFP could be circumvented and how we could ensure we complied to these wholly artificial regulations. The disastrous error was to have a ridiculously insecure server and unencrypted emails so that an individual (not a state entity or the like) could dump everything on it into the open.

We like to the think the club is ultra professional in everything it does but this, the drugs testing notifications fuck up and potentially infringing youth signings rules says we aren't. I'm expecting a one year CL ban at some point so the question is will we go again and put even more money into it to compensate but without getting caught out.

 

[Newman Noggs]

My best guess is that, if it comes to a Court fight, we don't argue with UEFA about the minutiae, we go straight for the jugular and prove that FFP is illegal.

That's what UEFA fear most and it's something that is being conveniently ignored amongst the allegations of City have done this and City have done that. We must never lose sight of the fact that this whole scheme is a cartel-driven racket.

As for this "agreement" we signed with UEFA. There's (in my opinion) a good argument that the agreement was signed under extreme commercial duress given that UEFA were threatening to collapse our business plan at the most delicate point in its development. Indeed, if they had succeeded, we would never have been able to get where we are.

And, as for "good faith", I think there's a very good argument that it's impossible to make any agreement with UEFA in good faith given that it comprises only businesses with conflicting interests to ours.