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.
jrb said:
Club Financial Control Body Investigatory Chamber

The work of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is underpinned by the Investigatory Chamber, led by the CFCB chief investigator for the monitoring and investigation stage of the proceedings.

The investigatory chamber consists of the CFCB chief investigator, who heads the CFCB investigatory chamber and takes the necessary measures to guarantee its proper functioning, and at least three other members, including a CFCB deputy chief investigator.

An investigation can be opened ex officio or upon request. The CFCB chief investigator establishes the facts and collects all relevant evidence. He leads the investigation proceedings himself or assigns this role to other member of the investigatory chamber.

At the end of the investigation, the CFCB chief investigator, after having consulted with the other members of the investigatory chamber, may decide to dismiss the case; conclude, with the consent of the defendant, a settlement agreement; or apply, with the consent of the defendant, disciplinary measures limited to a warning, a reprimand or a fine up to a maximum amount of €100,000; or refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber.

Chairman and Chief Investigator
Yves Leterme (Belgium)

Members
Jacobo Beltrán (Spain)
Egon Franck (Germany)
Petros Mavroidis (Greece)
Damien Neven (Belgium)
Richard Parry (England)
Konstantin Sonin (Russia)
Yves Wehrli (France)
Click to expand...

According to the Telegraph report tonight they cite Mavroidis from Greece saying Uefa haven't reached a decision yet.

Surely yet another example that the chamber are leaking and discussing our case.

Funnily enough, the same paper in the same article cites a source close to the investigation saying a ban would be put on ice until an our appeal.

They seem to have it all mapped out.
 
cookster said:
Honestly, could this clown look more Dipper...

rick-parry.jpg
Click to expand...
Isn't that Terry off Brookside?
 
This seems very dubious to me on every level.

It's probably nothing but it fails on every point of ethics.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/people/rick-parry/

The Sloan Sports Conference seems to be some sport analytic think tank hosted by the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology near Boston.

Boston huh? As in the Boston Red Socks? Yeah I wonder who owns them.

It gets better........if you have a look at the speakers for 2019 event which happened on March 1 and 2nd

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/current/2019-featured-speakers/

Well there's Gretchen Reynolds of the New York Times.

So as i put on my tin foil hat....there's a conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts two months ago in good ole' John W Henry's back yard. Hell even Bill James, Captain Moneyball himself is one of the speakers and it seems he even works for the Red Sox now. Crazy. So it's not exactly a strain on the imagination to believe J.W Henry, Rick Parry and the New York Times are all there at the same event. Simples.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
According to the Telegraph report tonight they cite Mavroidis from Greece saying Uefa haven't reached a decision yet.

Surely yet another example that the chamber are leaking and discussing our case.

Funnily enough, the same paper in the same article cites a source close to the investigation saying a ban would be put on ice until an our appeal.

They seem to have it all mapped out.
Click to expand...

I dont think saying "the case is ongoing" is leaking from Mavroidis. You could ask a jury member in a trial if they'd reached a verdict, it's not telling you anything about the process, the direction or the conclusions of the case.

As for the ban being frozen, that's just common sense I could have told you that. CAS has been consistent on this line, innocent until proven guilty means you can't be punished by getting banned before the conclusion of the appeal to CAS. Next seasons CL starts in about a month, thre's no way any punishment could be brought to bear next season.
 
I think I've got this right, and I've been perusing Colin's stuff (always the best place to start). The idea here is that when we were punished for FFP, the central issue was the goalpost move by UEFA on how to account for wages pre-2010 -- UEFA said it would be done one way and changed it later; City thought we were mathematically sound the old way, but the new way ended up snagging City in a situation where we over the max threshold loss. It's described here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-city-ffp-uefa-financial-15515399

ALSO at issue at the time was, as others have pointed out, the situation whereby our sponsorships might have been inflated, assuming ADUG controlled Etihad, and others. If they did, those deals would have to be at "fair market"; if not, they would be deemed arms-length 3rd party transactions. What appears to have happened is there was either a disagreement between City and UEFA as to this, or the two agreed there was no control by ADUG or the Sheikh, or that the deals were priced arms-length.

Therefore, the sponsorship issue was NOT the technical violation lynchpin upon which the fine and squad size restriction rested. To some degree, this was left unresolved -- UEFA had already "got" City on the pre-2010 wage issue, so it didn't matter. UEFA weren't prepared to fight; City might have been, but didn't need to, and their argument at the time was a disagreement over the goalpost move.

NOW, given the hacked emails, UEFA believes there is evidence that indeed there WAS ADUG/Sheikh control of these entities, and are effectively trying City for the same "violation" twice. City obviously disagree, as they certainly did previously, and moreover, have every right to be furious since this issue was not part of the original punishment, and effectively done and dusted in their minds.

Most important, through both the Football Leaks and the leaks by one or more persons to the press (the latter contrary to UEFA's explicit statement/promise of March 7), the integrity of City's financials/accounting is being attacked without support and City is not going to stand for that if all is above board -- no company would, whatever its business. I'm a stock analyst and have seen this movie before with one of the companies I follow whose accounting was attacked (wrongly and, it turned out, illegally) by a short-seller.

I write this in part because of this article written by Jonathan Smith, who I like, but who I think has gotten the cause of our 2014 violation wrong (see 2nd to last paragraph).

http://www.espn.com/soccer/manchest...oncerned-over-reports-of-champions-league-ban

I welcome any thoughts/comments/corrections.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I think I've got this right, and I've been perusing Colin's stuff (always the best place to start). The idea here is that when we were punished for FFP, the central issue was the goalpost move by UEFA on how to account for wages pre-2010 -- UEFA said it would be done one way and changed it later; City thought we were mathematically sound the old way, but the new way ended up snagging City in a situation where we over the max threshold loss. It's described here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-city-ffp-uefa-financial-15515399

ALSO at issue at the time was, as others have pointed out, the situation whereby our sponsorships might have been inflated, assuming ADUG controlled Etihad, and others. If they did, those deals would have to be at "fair market"; if not, they would be deemed arms-length 3rd party transactions. What appears to have happened is there was either a disagreement between City and UEFA as to this, or the two agreed there was no control by ADUG or the Sheikh, or that the deals were priced arms-length.

Therefore, the sponsorship issue was NOT the technical violation lynchpin upon which the fine and squad size restriction rested. To some degree, this was left unresolved -- UEFA had already "got" City on the pre-2010 wage issue, so it didn't matter. UEFA weren't prepared to fight; City might have been, but didn't need to, and their argument at the time was a disagreement over the goalpost move.

NOW, given the hacked emails, UEFA believes there is evidence that indeed there WAS ADUG/Sheikh control of these entities, and are effectively trying City for the same "violation" twice. City obviously disagree, as they certainly did previously, and moreover, have every right to be furious since this issue was not part of the original punishment, and effectively done and dusted in their minds.

Most important, through both the Football Leaks and the leaks by one or more persons to the press (the latter contrary to UEFA's explicit statement/promise of March 7), the integrity of City's financials/accounting is being attacked without support and City is not going to stand for that if all is above board -- no company would, whatever its business. I'm a stock analyst and have seen this movie before with one of the companies I follow whose accounting was attacked (wrongly and, it turned out, illegally) by a short-seller.

I write this in part because of this article written by Jonathan Smith, who I like, but who I think has gotten the cause of our 2014 violation wrong (see 2nd to last paragraph).

http://www.espn.com/soccer/manchest...oncerned-over-reports-of-champions-league-ban

I welcome any thoughts/comments/corrections.
Click to expand...
Good contribution.
In addition many of our summer transfer targets, (like De Ligt?), are probably getting approaches from many top European clubs. Deliberately spreading false rumours, about a future CL ban, could lead them to go elsewhere, possibly to Liverpool, the club that could well be behind the pre-mature release of information?

The club needs to be robust and proactive with all media outlets publishing incorrect speculation, when the investigations are still in progress.
 


Tebas saying that City should get a ban from CL.

What a bastard this guy is.
 
Young Blue said:
I have made a complaint to the BBC about their coverage, which I copied on the Media thread. I urge other fans to do the same. My complaint was as follows:

The current BBC headline: Uefa “want Man City banned from Champions league” and article is unfair and deliberately damaging and unproven.

As the club say there is a “deliberate campaign to damage the club” and the BBC, a public funded organisation, is playing a leading part.

Can you imagine a pre-trial headline “Police/CPS want person X to face life imprisonment” before full evidence has been heard?

It is a fundamental right there should be a presumption of innocence not guilt.

Additionally throughout the 2018/19 PL campaign, and beyond, all the BBC journalists have shown a clear bias in favour of Liverpool.

Headlines such as “Liverpool look to make history,” when exactly the same could be said for City. They can achieve a unique domestic Grand Slam not to mention historic back to back PL titles.

Most BBC coverage since the final day has not been about City’s achievement, coming back from 7 points behind in January, but how Liverpool can improve further for next season.

The BBC football is full of ex-Liverpool players who consistently fail to give independent, unbiased output in breach of the BBC Charter’s core values.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, A good idea!
I have sent a complaint to the BBC too:
"The recent reporting of Manchester City FC by the BBC online, on the radio and on TV are in breach of the BBC Charter's core values.

The online article by Dan Roan, Sports Editor, and numerous reports on radio and television stations throughout the day, were biased, speculative and unfair. Investigations are in process by Uefa, and have yet to be concluded.

There should be a presumption of innocence not guilt. Manchester City FC strongly believe they are not in breach of FFP.

There are strong links between the original Media organisation releasing this story, The "New York Times" and Liverpool FC. Until 2011 the NY Times was the second largest shareholder in Liverpool FC.

Furthermore the only English member on the investigatory panel is Rick Parry who was Chief Executive of Liverpool FC from 1998 until 2009.

There appears a clear conflict of interest. Liverpool FC are one of the principal rivals of Manchester City FC in the Premier League and Champions League.

It is wrong of a publicly funded organisation to speculate about what "Uefa investigators want" until due process has been served."
 
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I think I've got this right, and I've been perusing Colin's stuff (always the best place to start). The idea here is that when we were punished for FFP, the central issue was the goalpost move by UEFA on how to account for wages pre-2010 -- UEFA said it would be done one way and changed it later; City thought we were mathematically sound the old way, but the new way ended up snagging City in a situation where we over the max threshold loss. It's described here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...all-news/man-city-ffp-uefa-financial-15515399

ALSO at issue at the time was, as others have pointed out, the situation whereby our sponsorships might have been inflated, assuming ADUG controlled Etihad, and others. If they did, those deals would have to be at "fair market"; if not, they would be deemed arms-length 3rd party transactions. What appears to have happened is there was either a disagreement between City and UEFA as to this, or the two agreed there was no control by ADUG or the Sheikh, or that the deals were priced arms-length.

Therefore, the sponsorship issue was NOT the technical violation lynchpin upon which the fine and squad size restriction rested. To some degree, this was left unresolved -- UEFA had already "got" City on the pre-2010 wage issue, so it didn't matter. UEFA weren't prepared to fight; City might have been, but didn't need to, and their argument at the time was a disagreement over the goalpost move.

NOW, given the hacked emails, UEFA believes there is evidence that indeed there WAS ADUG/Sheikh control of these entities, and are effectively trying City for the same "violation" twice. City obviously disagree, as they certainly did previously, and moreover, have every right to be furious since this issue was not part of the original punishment, and effectively done and dusted in their minds.

Most important, through both the Football Leaks and the leaks by one or more persons to the press (the latter contrary to UEFA's explicit statement/promise of March 7), the integrity of City's financials/accounting is being attacked without support and City is not going to stand for that if all is above board -- no company would, whatever its business. I'm a stock analyst and have seen this movie before with one of the companies I follow whose accounting was attacked (wrongly and, it turned out, illegally) by a short-seller.

I write this in part because of this article written by Jonathan Smith, who I like, but who I think has gotten the cause of our 2014 violation wrong (see 2nd to last paragraph).

http://www.espn.com/soccer/manchest...oncerned-over-reports-of-champions-league-ban

I welcome any thoughts/comments/corrections.
Click to expand...

Having also availed myself of Colins thoughts and opinions on this. I'm still not sure the entire findings of the previous investigation were ever made public and we can only really go off what we do know or resulting actions of both parties to try to ascertain the details. Obviously Citys stance was that none of the major sponsorships either primary tier (Etihad) or secondary tier (Aaabar & Etisalat) were subject to "the fair value test" as in their opinion they are not related parties.
The fact may never have been established but agreement was reached that there would be no market adjustment of the Etihad deal and that the secondary tier sponsorships would remain at their current value also without being devalued but agreed that they would not be increased.
Its therefore not correct to say the reason we failed was because of inflated sponsorship agreement. We failed because we didn't meet the break even amount for the selected evaluation period. The pre 2010 wages issues meant we failed by a lot more than we intended to but we were always going to fail even before the goal posts were allegedly moved. Its that a negotiated settlement for a few million would always be a lot less punitive than the amount we were eventually fined (£49 Million) for missing the mark by a long way.
There were other matters in relation to the creation of companies to manage player rights payments operating at substantial losses which we obviously were using to circumvent expenditure and reduce the outgoing balance I think and the removal of managerial wages costs to the City Group and re-charging other City Group members for centralised administration costs that we agreed to cease.

As far as this new investigation is concerned, its obviously based on information from alleged out of context emails from the Der Spiegel leaks indicating HRH Sheik Mansour was somehow funding the Etihad deal by paying Etihad a large balance of the total. Unfortunately for UEFA this is not illegal although it may not be in the spirit of the Regulations or even known facts that weren't revealed to investigators at the time. We didn't have to. If Etihad signed the check for the full amount, we complied with their shitty rules.

Well thats how I understand it - im sure if anyone knows more or better I stand to be corrected.
 
Why can't we just challenge the unfair rule that’s called "Financial Fair Play" and end this drama ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Newman Noggs said:
This is absolutely right. The semantics are just wriggling. No-one who isn't close to the case, i.e. only those directly involved, should be "familiar" with it. Anything else is a breach of confidentiality at best.

The fact that details of the recommended punishment are so specific is a further indicator that it is someone "close to" or "familiar with" the case, however you want to word it and however much the press and UEFA squirm and dissemble.

Furthermore, it is evident that this isn't an accidental leak. This is clearly deliberate in its timing and its targeting and is, therefore, malicious.
Click to expand...


I hope our legal team are wringing their hands at this. The wife is a legal eagle and was on about this last night.
‘UEFA should be pooping themselves right now as this is a deliberate and calculated release of sensitive information, and brings into question their integrity’ were her words.
She’s rarely wrong, but don’t tell her I said that.
I hope it opens a can of worms for the cünts and our legal team tear them a new one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top