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.
Nothing tangible will come of this with regards to a ban or any other substantive punishments

However they are conducting a long and drawn out smear on our club to try and diminish our achievements

We have in effect been convicted in the eyes of the public , I think that is the result UEFA are looking for as they won’t want this going to court as it may give us a chance to clear our name
 
There's no point trying to discredit the NY Times through links with Liverpool's owners. There is a UEFA investigation ongoing.

What have we learned?
  • The investigators are about to refer their case to the Adjudicatory Chamber and recommend a ban of at least one year. Well we could expect that.
  • According to the people with knowledge of the investigation, City’s punishment most likely will be linked to an accusation that it provided misleading statements in resolving an earlier case, as well as false statements to licensing authorities in England, and not over the true value of the sponsorship agreements.
That last point is just journalists opinion, but I have no reason to doubt it.

I interpret that as a weakening of UEFA's case. They seem to have given up pursuing the angle that City have inflated the sponsorship deals and are now looking more at the operation to deceive and defy UEFA. I do not on the other like the involvement of false statements to licensing authorities in England as it widens the implications of the investigation.

That is how I see it. And as I said before the end result was the same. We failed to hit the target due to wage write off being scrapped late in the day. If we did give false accounts or information then it didn't change that fact. And I am sure a High Court would look at how UEFA changed their position on allowing wages to be written off impacted the club. Surely that isn't a fit and proper test if they can change what a club is allowed to write off so late that they cannot have time to address an overspend?!

We took the hit and kept the relationship. As I said, this will not stand up in Court on procedural grounds and the club will happily fuck UEFA over if they have to. There is no way we will lie down and take a ban. Either way with legal challenge or appeal it is a way off before any sanctions can come in.

We will just have to win the CL next season and then they can fuck right off.
 
I gave you two chances to explain why you would be able to confirm any of it, more than anyone else could... and you provided nada. Your debating skills are seriously lacking from what I can see.

Imagine saying that and moaning when people say: "I can confirm this guy is a wum".

Thank you for giving me two chances, I’m really grateful for the opportunity!

I’m more than happy to come back and discuss this once it’s all done.
 
Who talked about the Muslim Brotherhood's legal position or the legality of Al-Jazeera tv channels? I did not talk about this subject. What I mentioned is that Qatar has established allied with Muslims Brotherhood who are considered enemies due to their Islamic and political ideology.

You referred to Qatar supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (they don't "support" them, they have given Asylum to some of the leaders when they were illegally deposed from Egypt. I referenced their legality as Qatar's "support" for the MB was often referred to as "supporting terrorism" by the Illegal Blockaders when the rest of the world doesn't class them as terrorists. The reason the UAE and Egypt and KSA classify them as terrorists is because the called for free and open democratic elections across the Muslim world (including Qatar) and they made the point that the wealthiest nations in the region shouldn't see the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of half a dozen families. Obviously, following the Arab Spring, the rulers of KSA and UAE shat themselves and fought back against any individual or entity that they believed may pose a threat to their hegemony.

Al-Jazeera tv channels are used to spread problems in neighboring countries using the concept of freedom of expression, while this freedom of speech does not exist and is not allowed in Qatar.

Al Jazeera is a news outlet and is the most balanced and trustworthy in the Middle East. KSA and UAE have taken issue with some of the reporting as they prefer to portray their own tailored image.

Why are you taking it so sensitive and personal? Are you in a relationship with the Muslims Brotherhood or Qatar?

You must understand the sensitivity of the situation in the GCC countries, and you should not confuse things and pretend to know more when actually you know nothing.

It is because I do know the situation that I take it "so sensitively". Unlike you, I am not an Emirati, I am not spoon fed by a state media, I am not lied to on a daily basis about what the situation is and I am not liable to 20 years imprisonment for showing support for Qatar on social media, which is something that you could be prosecuted for. When your leaders brought in that law, did not think "Hang on a minute, if we are the good guys, then why has my government brought in this law to punish me if I say something on Facebook in support of our brother GCC nation?" Doesn't exactly smack of being a right and normal law does it?

It is merely that these countries do not want Qatar to interfere in its affairs through the Muslims Brotherhood or Al Jazeera tv channel, as simple as that. Muslims Brotherhood have formed hidden political groups in these countries, demanding Islamic rules, they also demanded Qatar to stop using Al-Jazeera to attack these countries through its programs.

No, it is that these countries do not respect the Sovereignty of another country. Qatar is its own country. Qatar can offer asylum to whoever the fuck it wants, as can every other nation on Earth. Qatar can have its own media like every other nation on Earth. Al Jazeera is well respected throughout the world and if the UAE or KSA is unhappy with the reporting of worker rights or democracy or corruption then they can always improve their records in such things. If they are upset that Al Jazeera doesn't report on such things within Qatar, then they are free to set up their own news outlets to do likewise.

As for the MB setting up secret political groups in those countries, so fucking what? The region could use some democracy rather than Saudi led Wahhabi Islam which is currently a cancer on the world. Whilst we are at it, KSA complaining about MB wanting Islamic rules is a bit rich when they stone adulterers to death, have atheism as a capital offence and have executed more citizens per capita than any other country in the world.

KSA is the worst, most despotic country on the face of the Earth and it's shameful that the UK is complicit in the genocide being perpetrated in Yemen in their proxy war with Iran.

Neither Qatar nor the United Arab Emirates are democratic, so why does Qatar lie and claim something it does not have?

Qatar doesn't claim it is democratic. They just didn't outlaw a party (in fact, as mentioned they gave them asylum) which would prefer democracy across the region. They aren't quite as insecure as the leaders of KSA and the UAE. But the latter two have lost out far more from the bloackade than the former.

Now back to the thread as my point was relevant and important - Qatar owning PSG has no bearing on City. Qatar has at no point threatened the UAE nor has Qatar looked to provoke the UAE or escalate the impasse, which is the point (i.e City fans needn't worry that the PSG President is now high up in UEFA). Qatar has no wish to ramp up hostilities with the UAE.
 
Last edited:
Some people really need to wake up and smell what the establishment is feeding them.

Woke up this morning to Andy Robertson saying Liverpool are here to say - in reality, his actual quotes are very complimentary about us. And this bullshit again, immediately after back to back league titles and just before the transfer window. They can take their poxy competition and work it right up their chuff.

I really must stop reading the BBC.
 
Don't often post on here but seeing the Fenway Sports and NYT links made me think about a few other bits and pieces regarding the Boston set

I was interested to find that there are accusations of Roma and Liverpool both having the same owner without declaring it (which has implications for European competition involvement). Napoli had a whinge about the Becker transfer and claimed that the Roma chairman, Thomas Di Benedetto is a partner of Fenway Sports Group, owners of Liverpool. (Which appears to be true). There were also some interesting conversations regarding the Salah transfer and links between the sides - one of the Roma owners actually said the semi final in 2018 was a "Boston Derby".

In 2011, the Guardian reported that there could be a conflict of interest should Di Benedetto take over Roma and the UEFA rules governing integrity of competition would come into play - ""No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition". This is defined as "holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights" or "being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club", among other things."

Personally I think that apart from the obvious ties in club ownership and influence, the transfers of Becker and possibly Salah should also be looked into. In 2018, Roma were released from FFP sanctions from 2015 - they had to sell Salah to avoid a deficit and you could argue at the time that he was overpriced. Could the same be true for Becker last year? Certainly in October 2018 they had losses of $25million, compared with the $42 million the previous year and both of those sales would have contributed to reduced losses. If they had not sold then they would have likely failed FFP again.

Of course we all know that Liverpool only escaped sanction for FFP breaches because largely they were not in Europe at the time and UEFA allowed a certain amount of losses to be written off as stadium development
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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.