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.
blue moony said:
TOLM it’s nit his first offence either , was doing exactly the same last week !

Talksport know exactly what agenda he is going to spout so surely they are culprable!

It’s not the first time they have gone OTT on city without getting there facts straight !

David Silva and his baby etc etc ....

When is enough enough ?
Click to expand...

Yep, he's an Arsenal loving **** who is going to find his mobile number posted on here before much longer.

Allegedly, of course.

He's a simpleton. Conveniently, for a supposed expert on the subject matter, he elected not to mention that the hacked documents relate to the period already sanctioned for.

He's in big trouble, as he accused us of failing twice and still manipulating the books.

He's finished.
 
Summerbuzz said:


Accor (French hotel chain, 10% owned by QIA, who have two board members. Accor are entering a 1bn deal with QIA to build hotels) - QNB (50% owned by QIA with the remaining %50 regular shareholders (limited to maximum of %25/%49 non-Qataris, can't tell which figure is correct) - and - Qatari Telecom (68% owned by QIA).

The timing of all this is extremely suspect.

Sorry if this has been highlighted already
Click to expand...

What timing exactly is suspect here regarding PSG new sponsor deal ?

PSG was a long time partner of Emirates. Due to the turmoil between Qatar and UAE, it was unlikely that partnership will keep going, especially when PSG was asking for a big raise due to their bigger profile worldwide.

PSG prospected for a long time (chinese companies, Air France,etc.) before they got that exceptional offer by Accor Hotels that had decided to launch their new fidelity program ALL by announcing their partnership with PSG. I think it is fair to say they got a big publicity (prolly few of us would have heard about them so fast, if not for that PSG deal).

As often in business, connections are essential and Sarkozy is in the board of Accor. Sebastien Bazin, the CEO, is the former (despised) PSG president when he had been sent by the Colony Capital crooks. Qatar has only 10 % in Accor and is not even the major stakeholder (they are chinese).

If you have a problem with that sponsor, what about Bayern and Adidas, Allianz, Audi that are at the same time in the ownership and in the sponsorship ?

The other sponsorships have already been dealt with FFP (they have all been devaluated several times to meet the fair value), so it should not be a problem either.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
The thing about all this that rankles the most is that the arguments are all historic from stuff 5 years ago and subsequently they reneged and changed the FFP requirements for new investors when some of the old G14 clubs couldn't make the break even requirement and went crying to UEFA.

The club have clearly demonstrated financial propriety and management, we are 5th on DeLoittes list and are one of the fastest growing football brands with a turnover that will exceed 600 Million this year, have never broken a transfer record, clearly made substantial profits for the last 3 seasons and therefore piss the break even requirement so beloved of these arseholes, yet we are vilified as cheats based on rules that no longer exist without the truth being heard on the basis of conjecture and rumour mongering among the press and their "sources". I sincerely hope we fully nail their fucking hat on when the time comes.
Click to expand...
 
jrb said:
Clear and concise by Prestwich Blue.

Are City really facing a potential Champions League ban?

https://boltfromtheblue.live/2019/05/14/are-city-really-facing-a-potential-champions-league-ban/
Click to expand...

So if that's true, surely the precedent has been set with UEFA's punishment of PSG when they devalued their 'related party' sponsorship (if Etihad is deemed to be a related party - the case for which seems neither here nor there) and fined them? Why would we be banned if PSG weren't?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Yep, he's an Arsenal loving **** who is going to find his mobile number posted on here before much longer.

Allegedly, of course.

He's a simpleton. Conveniently, for a supposed expert on the subject matter, he elected not to mention that the hacked documents relate to the period already sanctioned for.

He's in big trouble, as he accused us of failing twice and still manipulating the books.

He's finished.
Click to expand...


Good because last week I was ready to drive to Talksport Fucking Towers and see what he had to say face to face !

Good that’s he’s finished but I’d like to know where City’s stance is with Talksport this year ! It’s been beyond a joke .

I know some
Say what does it matter it’s a shut station , but it does matter when it’s constant bullshit with no apparent evidence or facts to back up his quotes !


Peps rattled them calling them out in it , and now hopefully the club will finish the job.

My only wish is that we stand firm and refuse to talk deal with some of there tin pot journalists when they come grovelling , because believe me they will
 
Rolee said:
But the specific wording City used in quotations is not in the article??
Click to expand...

I'd suggest it's probably in the correspondence between City and NYT? The important thing is the article has not been edited to take away anything to do with a source at UEFA.
 
better dead than red said:
GFY?
Click to expand...
I’ve decided on...

The-hills-gif-kristen-fuck-you.gif
 
vinnie97 said:
It wasn't edited, the original article is still there in which they claim sources close to the investigation believe we will get a 1 year ban. I don't think the club have mentioned anything about it been edited but who are these people close to the investigation that is suppose to be confidential
Click to expand...
The one I just read stated "...with knowledge of the investigation..." and later on refers to those "...with knowledge of the discussion...". That i,s the word 'knowledge is used not the word 'close'. Don't know if this has any relevance, but there's no reference to anyone 'close' to the investigation in the version I've just read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top