Top postMy 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.
I agree. A UEFA investigation committee may well reading the Der Spiegel accounts at face value find that City took an evasive course of action, but an Adjudicatory Chamber has to consider the likelihood of getting this to stick. They may well feel that they have to be seen to do something knowing that their credibility of their regulations is at stake, so there is a strong possibility that a ban will be announced. However if the NYT is accurate regarding the basis of their case then I think any ban will be thrown out by CAS, or a Court. Any organisation which sees the rules changed at the last moment will act to defend itself. Indeed UEFA may well have a lot to fear from this. If City challenge this in the Courts then it could destroy their FFP regime.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.
Overly conspiratorial. This will be driven by UEFA's own disciplinary process, and it was bound to get leaked.Title win sunday and the week before a possible unprecedented domestic treble did you really expect anything else to come out in the press? Its only gonna get worse throughout the week unhappy players real madrid taking our best players etc
Inevitable this, now time for our lawyers to do their work.
The journo who broke the story does seem a decent one unlike say Duncan Castles , Nick Harris and many other UK based. FFP itself is a fraud designed for the ' Elite' which no one really disputes now
I agree. A UEFA investigation committee may well reading the Der Spiegel accounts at face value find that City took an evasive course of action, but an Adjudicatory Chamber has to consider the likelihood of getting this to stick. They may well feel that they have to be seen to do something knowing that their credibility of their regulations is at stake, so there is a strong possibility that a ban will be announced. However if the NYT is accurate regarding the basis of their case then I think any ban will be thrown out by CAS, or a Court. Any organisation which sees the rules changed at the last moment will act to defend itself. Indeed UEFA may well have a lot to fear from this. If City challenge this in the Courts then it could destroy their FFP regime.
As usual I am wary of my own opinion here because a) I am a biased City fan, and b) I have zero training in this type of issue, c) I don't think we have a level playing field because City are seen as an Arab rich club and that is highly unpopular.
That is if you assume that a rich Arab Sheikh can get a fair trial in a case of a regulator acting to enforce financial fair play.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
Now this is really interesting. The New York Times has been leading the way on UEFA and FFP issues for years. They seem to get a lot of selected leaks. It always seemed strange to me, given the low profile football still has in the USA, that they pursued these stories so vigorously.If that's true it explains a lot
I agree, but it's not UEFA that are behind this and you'd be better looking in the direction of the American owners of club in this country.
Think the bottom line is IF we go down we take as many of the fuckers with us as we can.Now this is really interesting. The New York Times has been leading the way on UEFA and FFP issues for years. They seem to get a lot of selected leaks. It always seemed strange to me, given the low profile football still has in the USA, that they pursued these stories so vigorously.
I also refer everyone to the earlier statement "The attempt to damage the club's reputation is organised and clear". The timing of this latest 'revelation' is a perfect example of that.just a little reminder
"Manchester City welcomes the opening of a formal Uefa investigation as an opportunity to bring to an end the speculation resulting from the illegal hacking and out of context publication of City emails".
"The club's published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record
And had you started your initial post with the words "In my opinion ..." instead of jumping in with two feet,then maybe you would not have received so many negative posts.You’re entitled to your opinion.
Should have a fucking bath now and again then. ;)Staggering the amount of people in work that want to talk football, that didn't come near me yesterday.
Do you honestly believe that such comments will un-nerve the players and coaching staff ?
NOT one little bit.
Technically I feel the NYT piece, if true, represents a weakening of the allegations against City but I don't think we're operating on a level playing field where the law and regulation are the only thing that matters. We're deeply unpopular Arab money that can help clean the image of regulators sullied by a corrupt past. It's good for a regulator's image to be seen to fight people like us.Fortunately in a Court, a) and c) are irrelevant! I can't see how there is a legal case against us. And therefore I can't see how UEFA will issue a ban. I am sure we have cooperated whilst making it clear that this time we will fight them.
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