Many of us have been saying to take this approach for years. I have no idea why we have been so feeble in dealing with these rats, maybe it's a different cultural approach from our owners?
Surely they must have realised by now unless we start to fight back and hurt them they will never let up??
According to the Guardian, the club have upped the ante a bit with their response to the NYT article -
This would be presumed to include further internal financial evidence and an explanation of the emails. The statement protested that the IC process itself has been the subject of leaks. “Manchester City FC is fully cooperating in good faith with the CFCB IC’s ongoing investigation,” the statement said.
.
PSG has been sanctioned only one time and it was at the same time City got their similar sanctions.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?
Sky News also reporting that according to 'sky sources' the UEFA panel investigating the financial allegations believe CFCBIC are going to recommend a 1 year ban. So are Sky just using the story from the NY Times or has news of the decision also been leaked to them?
PSG has been sanctioned only one time and it was at the same time City got their similar sanctions.
Why would they ban PSG if PSG comply with the rules : they applied retroactive devaluations and PSG balanced the books by selling players accordingly. Thus, PSG is within the rules of FFP and cannot be punished.
The trick is that, even after PSG compliance, they tried to devaluate the sponsors further more. Since PSG couldn't sell any more players (the last market window for those 3 years was already over), it would have meant PSG would be punished despite their best efforts and cooperation. CAS ruled in favor of PSG due to a technicality.
So PSG case has nothing in common with what City is accused of. And PSG didn't get fined or banned because UEFA was unable to find (or make) a reason for us to be out the boundaries of FFP rules.
I hope you're right but considering talkshite tweeted the whiny ****z vitriol shortly afterwards they didn't seem to have a problem with it.
It was never edited out.
Interesting turn of phrase there.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 made the case a curious fit for the financial control officials, who were assigned the case instead of UEFA’s main disciplinary body.
This the bit??
Something very weird is going on.
Everyone who saw the new break earlier today saw it... it was either "sources close to the case" or "people familiar with the case"... Even City's legal team commented on it. I can't seem to find it in the tweets or the article.
Lets just hope someone had the sense to take a screenshot. As NYT/Tariq have gone into full on denial by the looks of it.
Eh? I read the original article and it contained the phrase "people familiar with the case" or something to that effect. That is no longer in the article.
Me too, it’s great watching a match that means so much without having a vested interest, proper chilled out and a little smug, sat on two trophies, I think the Baggies may just come out top.According to today's Guardian the club have now said they have provided "comprehensive proof" of their innocence of the allegations. There also seems to be some pushback from the club now with the tone changing significantly. The club have said:
According to the Guardian, the club have upped the ante a bit with their response to the NYT article -
"Responding to a report in the New York Times on Monday that the IC is set to recommend City being banned from the Champions League, the club issued a strongly worded statement saying they have provided proof that the allegations are false.
This would be presumed to include further internal financial evidence and an explanation of the emails. The statement protested that the IC process itself has been the subject of leaks. “Manchester City FC is fully cooperating in good faith with the CFCB IC’s ongoing investigation,” the statement said.
“In doing so the club is reliant on both the CFCB IC’s independence and commitment to due process; and on Uefa’s commitment of the 7th of March that it … will make no further comment on the matter while the investigation is ongoing.
“The New York Times report citing ‘people familiar with the case’ is therefore extremely concerning. The implications are that either Manchester City’s good faith in the CFCB IC is misplaced or the CFCB IC process is being misrepresented by individuals intent on damaging the club’s reputation and its commercial interests. Or both.
“Manchester City’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false, and comprehensive proof of this fact has been provided to the CFCB IC.”
A statement from Uefa said: “We do not comment on ongoing investigations regarding financial fair play matters.”
The tone of this statement is completely different from the reserved tone of previous comments (by the way, I like the "or both"). The club have clearly been angered by the way this investigation is being handled. You can see how this could get very dirty if allowed to do so. But far more interesting is the statement that CFCB IC have been given "comprehensive proof" - well, proof is proof so I'll be intrigued to see how this bit pans out. Also, the Guardian's comment about "an explanation of the emails" - well, at the start the club said that the leaked emails were out of context so the Guardian's supposition would fit with the earlier statement, and there may be other emails not leaked that neutralise the "incriminating" ones.
Anyway, I'm going to watch Villa and the Baggies which should be a bit more exciting than this stuff.
Hope so, maybe we should start actively trying to catch these journos out from now on. You just wouldn't expect to have to screenshot this stuff.I clearly remember reading it . Don't worry , pretty sure city would have the record - given they put it in their statement
Asking again:
Has ANYONE taken a screenshot of the original NYT article before it was edited? Media claiming it was not edited (Stu Brennan getting flack for this). I am 100% sure I read the original version which contained a sentence around "sources familiar with the investigation" which is now gone!
To be honest, UEFA and journos do that all the time about FFP and clubs.This is a very significant occurrence in the whole matter.
The NYT are standing by their journalist and the claim that he has a source close to the investigation. There has been no denial from UEFA that information may have been leaked. The cornerstone of any disciplinary investigation is the absolute mutually-held promise of confidentiality between parties. What has happened, and what City have seized upon with noticeable emphasis, is that there has been a breakdown in trust over UEFA's complete inability to maintain their promise of non-disclosure during investigative proceedings. I believe that the NYT is telling the truth. I believe that someone from within the CFCB IC has leaked information to the press. The reasons for this are unknown but given the timing, I think we all have our suspicions. By failing to uphold the ethical tenet of confidentiality, the whole UEFA investigation has been prejudiced. The likelihood is that any subsequent action would be successfully challenged in court, because UEFA cannot demonstrate that they have been able to satisfy the fundamental premise of impartiality. Make no mistake, City's statement was very carefully worded and allows the club to steal the initiative. Instead of questions being asked about us, the club can rightfully be asking very pointed questions of UEFA and the legitimacy of the CFCB IC.