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.
laserblue said:
He's implying tongue in cheek that if Liverpool fans start kicking off all English clubs will be banned. Again.
Click to expand...

Honestly, as long as no-one got hurt, I'd love it. The fallout from the darling dippers getting us banned from Europe again would be fantastic.
 
laserblue said:
He's implying tongue in cheek that if Liverpool fans start kicking off all English clubs will be banned. Again.
Click to expand...
Ohhh ok, sorry, my mistake.

I wonder if all the other English clubs would be so hell bent on us getting banned from Europe for FFP violations if UEFA applied the same logic they did in the 80s and banned all English teams.
 
nmc said:
You are completely correct - the circle I can’t square is if this is all about how Etihad make the payments - I.e. they get the money from the state - as a state backed headline - why hasn’t this been cleared up quickly and easily - since it’s an Etihad issue and certainly not illegal what is there to see. Equally why have City submitted a 100 page document when a simple “fuck off” would suffice.
Click to expand...

The regulation in question limits investment from owner to a certain amount (as I understand it, the allowable losses level).

Funnelling extra money through an inflated sponsorship through another company owned by the club owner could be a fairly obvious way of getting round the regulation. That's what this hangs on, as I see it - has the owner been funnelling in extra tens of millions a year to make the losses (as they were at the time) less?

(using numbers for effect)
e.g. if club losses were 60M over the 3-year period, and the allowable limit of owner investment was 30M = there's a 30M shortfall.
If a sponsorship is increased by 10M a year, and the owner provides that extra 10M himself, he's investing more than the 30M allowable through a back channel.

If it can be proved, it looks on the face of it to be getting round the regulations. It will depend on the regulation wording.
If it can't be proved, it's difficult to see what action would stand up to legal scrutiny.
 
I don't have an issue with the question, its the timing that annoyed me. I think I read somewhere that since the first announcement of the allegations and all the leaked emails Pep has been in 91 press conferences. Is Harris just slow and hes only got round to reading the one about Mancini or is it him just being a weasel and waiting to bring it up. Embarrassing really and another nail in the coffin for proper journalism.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
The regulation in question limits investment from owner to a certain amount (as I understand it, the allowable losses level).

Funnelling extra money through an inflated sponsorship through another company owned by the club owner could be a fairly obvious way of getting round the regulation.
Click to expand...
What company is it that the city owner also owns??
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
The sponsorship isn't inflated and there is no accusation from Uefa that it is.
They don't like the fact a stolen email insinuates that Etihad didn't pay all of it - which surprisingly isn't against the rules anyway. Its just they feel we should have told them although what its got to do with them I'm not sure. It keeps being referred to as backdoor funding by the owner although City are adamant we have broken no rules. Make of it what you will as a massive City fan with 7 posts in 2 years.
Oh and its got fuck all to do with the Premier League as FFP for the league came in years after Uefa introduced it. By then our commercial income was out of site of fucking FFP.
Usually on here if it walks like a duck, behaves like a duck & quacks like a duck you can bet your bottom dollar his first name is Donald.
Click to expand...
Only this

Etihad are a state owned airline

Just like all of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_airlines

Most, if not all, of those take up advertising or sponsorship of some form or another - if they didn't they couldn't compete with other airlines to get passenger numbers and stay in business

If all the governments in that list give all those airlines money to support their business and some of them chose to spend it on appearing on football team's shirt and stadium then what business is it of anybody else.

The only test that could be applied is "was the amount paid commensurate with what was received and in line with similar deals"

UEFA answered that with a yes

the rest is bullshit

Oh and as for the "negotiating arms deals" accusation that got levelled at our owner yesterday as another flagrant abuse of principle and moral right - even if it is true - who did they negotiate with and who did they subsequently buy them off?

The UK
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Funnelling extra money through an inflated sponsorship through another company owned by the club owner could be a fairly obvious way of getting round the regulation
Click to expand...
No one says it's inflated though. It's been allowed already as fair value so even if it was related parties it wouldn't matter.
 
Eds said:
Thinking about what Knob Harris asked Pep I wonder how many journalists have asked every Arsenal manager whether or not they received bungs like George Graham. Bear in mind he was actually found guilty of this offence.
Click to expand...

Or that £50k that sat in United’s safe for months on end !
 
what i cant figure is that if this was a 'criminal' case brought by the police, then the case would be thrown out of court as the 'evidence' was obtained illegally (hacked). So how can UEFA bring charges to us by the same means? We all know UEFA are corrupt, but to flaunt the law is just illegal ... isnt it?
 
Imagine if there was a company email "found" that showed a conversation about how all the seatbelts in Etihad planes needed replacing as they didn't work at all and Etihad needed £40m to fund this.

If Sheik Mansour didn't give them the £40m would he suddenly be a paragon of virtue?

Or is state backing of some business operations acceptable where deemed by UK journalists and football fans?
 
I don't think Etihad want anyone knowing their business, it's certainly not UEFA's business.

It could well be that highly sensitive information concerning how the state airline is currently struggling, is not something any corporation wishes to share with their competitors.

This stand-off is far bigger than City v UEFA.
 
No hint of irony from certain 'writers' who were more than happy to accept accreditation for Wembley and the automatic, guilt-by-association, hospitality, which comes from Emirates Airlines sponsoring said historic competition...

Each, who had the Emirates moniker proudly adorned around their chicken-shit necks...

I'm just glad they could leave their conscience at the Bobby Moore statue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top