UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Jacko1956]

What a joke, CAS appeal that claims unlawful leaking by UEFA and now this ! Another leak Think City will wipe the floor with UEFA through the courts even if were not banned City look like theve had enough of all this media fuelled bais ! Also looks like a decision is imminent if the BBC are stirring the pot again. Also UEFA have made no recent comments unlike the chair of the investigating panel who leaked all kinds of remarks about us, there worried it's all gone tits up for them !

 

[Dirty Harry]

I notice the BBC have now changed the story. They are a total embarrassment for a national broadcaster.

Just noticed it now, whether it was sinister or just incompetence is a matter of opinion, but without a doubt an utter embarrassment !

 

[Champions again in 2012]

I notice the BBC have now changed the story. They are a total embarrassment for a national broadcaster.

Just been to have a look and it looks the same as it did last night. Looked at football> all clubs> Manchester City

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Just been to have a look and it looks the same as it did last night. Looked at football> all clubs> Manchester City

Based on the snip quoted here, it's been changed.

The quotes cited here were:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) dismissed the club's claims, stating they were "groundless" and "unacceptable in tone".
This is wrong.

Now it says:
Uefa had dismissed the club's claims, stating they were "groundless" and "unacceptable in tone".
Which is quite a lot closer (Leterme seems to have written it, so the UEFA Chief Investigator rather than UEFA's senior people like Ceferin.

 

[nmc]

Just noticed it now, whether it was sinister or just incompetence is a matter of opinion, but without a doubt an utter embarrassment !

The fact that the BBC seem to encapsulate one of the most extreme “holier than thou” cultures that sees them deflect anything approaching criticism suggests we will never know. I’ve made numerous complaints to the BBC over the years and have never received anything close to an admission of error or wrong doing or an apology. Even when they were caught lying over the “Bertie” headline a senior executive at the BBC wrote me a 2 page missive denying any wrongdoing “whatsoever” - the name Bertie really was plucked out of the air at random and not one of the BBCs 20 odd thousand employees were aware that the term Bertie was in anyway related to a character in a Man United fanzine ! Or the fact that it had become a term of derision. There’s a self righteous attitude at the BBC that will ultimately see them go up in smoke.... Maybe some of these bitter fuckers like Harris should spend sometime investigating how our national broadcaster employed and tolerated known pedophiles and sex pests for decades - and when the facts came to life equally passed it off as something they were wholly unaware of. Numerous people will tell you what a sexual predator Stuart Hall was at the BBC and how his behaviour was tolerated and excused. I for one won’t be subscribing to the BBC when the license fee is scraped... and hopefully the cost cutting measures will include Danny Murphy!

 

[KS55]

I notice the BBC have now changed the story. They are a total embarrassment for a national broadcaster.

But they can't bring themselves to quote what CAS had to say about UEFA's dismissal of our complaint.

 

[JASR]

But they can't bring themselves to quote what CAS had to say about UEFA's dismissal of our complaint.

Yes, that’s my take as well.
They are absolutely battered when not showing differing views. But City related stuff is generally one-sided. Ie negative

 

[nmc]

Just been to have a look and it looks the same as it did last night. Looked at football> all clubs> Manchester City

Look closely the offending paragraph has been amended to say UEFA instead of CAS.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

The only reason this farce is continuing is becaue of the pressure from the original G14 clubs , and the likes of the knobhead from the Spanish F.A. , Rummenigge , Gill and others , if UEFA had the balls to ban us , they would be dragged through the courts for a decade or more and at the end of the day if a governing body is preventing investment it would surely be considered a restriction of trade to any mainstream court. UEFA are on thin ice , they might be able to dish out their £15k fines for Moscow racists , but this is on another level ,the CFG football group has very deep pockets and Khaldoun has done with paying millions to keep the status quo , get the f*ckers in court and when we do win hit them with claim for compensation which will make UEFA's eyes water.

 

[HelloCity]

I looked at doing this but they seem to say they handle compaints for TV and radio but not "what people write or post on the internet"?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/what-is-ofcom
I informed the BBC it was factually incorrect 7 hours ago but they have still not corrected it. I don't think it's a coincidence no reporter put a name to the article?

I’m sure they take complaints in relation to the website. The comments you saw are probably in relation to Twitter posts and blogs.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Look closely the offending paragraph has been amended to say UEFA instead of CAS.

Thanks was half asleep when I read it

 

[aguero93:20]

Yes, that’s my take as well.
They are absolutely battered when not showing differing views. But City related stuff is generally one-sided. Ie negative

They do show differing views on City. They show the rag view and then the dipper view.

 

[Keeper!]

The fact that the BBC seem to encapsulate one of the most extreme “holier than thou” cultures that sees them deflect anything approaching criticism suggests we will never know. I’ve made numerous complaints to the BBC over the years and have never received anything close to an admission of error or wrong doing or an apology. Even when they were caught lying over the “Bertie” headline a senior executive at the BBC wrote me a 2 page missive denying any wrongdoing “whatsoever” - the name Bertie really was plucked out of the air at random and not one of the BBCs 20 odd thousand employees were aware that the term Bertie was in anyway related to a character in a Man United fanzine ! Or the fact that it had become a term of derision. There’s a self righteous attitude at the BBC that will ultimately see them go up in smoke.... Maybe some of these bitter fuckers like Harris should spend sometime investigating how our national broadcaster employed and tolerated known pedophiles and sex pests for decades - and when the facts came to life equally passed it off as something they were wholly unaware of. Numerous people will tell you what a sexual predator Stuart Hall was at the BBC and how his behaviour was tolerated and excused. I for one won’t be subscribing to the BBC when the license fee is scraped... and hopefully the cost cutting measures will include Danny Murphy!

The BBC should have been closed down years ago, but still to be in existence when they blatantly covered up and let a paid employee paedophile continue his appalling acts says everything that needs to be said about the BBC.

Anyone who continues to pay the licence fee to these hypocrites needs there collective heads to be examined.

 

[jaiguruKun]

It's telling that all the so called journos were like pigs to the trough when one of the UEFA insiders leaked something but hasn't properly reported a Court judgement in relation to the integrity of their process. If the CAS had described City's conduct in relation to the 2014 settlement as "worrisome" then you can be sure the media would be reporting it. UEFA know they've lost now and it's about trying to find a solution which does the least amount of damage to their reputation and the most amount to ours. The media is also fully on board with this, hence the reason for the continued misreporting of the case.

 

[maurizio]

Interesting reading earlier:
"63. The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances".
This "scope document" not originally passed to City could prove a bias in the process. For example, if they had asked the accouncy firm to prove a financial link as a related party between Etihad and our owner, would the accountants been told to accept that the wording of the leak is the truth, that "HRH" in the leak is Sheikh Mansour (not true), and "related parties" are to be looked at as accepted in the rules at the time? We seem to be accused of hidden payments by the owner not being available to UEFA when settling in 2014. The value of the Etihad sponsorship was part of the settlement and put down as a related party anyway so there's little to justify further punishment? They changed the rules on related parties and sponsors at a later date so this wouldn't apply back then. Also do UEFA have all our emails? How can they prove they are correct in wording when the leaker is being prosecuted for blackmail and they seem to be selectively used against us?

 

[hello]

Be good if the club made a statement clarifying this ruling and managing the media message.

Don't be silly, that would involve Vicky actually doing some work, never going to happen.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

The fact that the BBC seem to encapsulate one of the most extreme “holier than thou” cultures that sees them deflect anything approaching criticism suggests we will never know. I’ve made numerous complaints to the BBC over the years and have never received anything close to an admission of error or wrong doing or an apology. Even when they were caught lying over the “Bertie” headline a senior executive at the BBC wrote me a 2 page missive denying any wrongdoing “whatsoever” - the name Bertie really was plucked out of the air at random and not one of the BBCs 20 odd thousand employees were aware that the term Bertie was in anyway related to a character in a Man United fanzine ! Or the fact that it had become a term of derision. There’s a self righteous attitude at the BBC that will ultimately see them go up in smoke.... Maybe some of these bitter fuckers like Harris should spend sometime investigating how our national broadcaster employed and tolerated known pedophiles and sex pests for decades - and when the facts came to life equally passed it off as something they were wholly unaware of. Numerous people will tell you what a sexual predator Stuart Hall was at the BBC and how his behaviour was tolerated and excused. I for one won’t be subscribing to the BBC when the license fee is scraped... and hopefully the cost cutting measures will include Danny Murphy!

It's a bit like the character in Coronation St who has been called Bertie - I mean who calls a baby that these days. I bet that the script writer will claim he isn't a rag and just made the name up.

 

[Sleeping_Easy]

Please can everybody read this and take it in. Loads on here piling into Nick Harris saying he is stupid, a liar etc. He isn't either. He knows that if you keep peddling a lie more people will believe than wont, especially if they want to believe the lie.

Don't want to stray into politics here but this goes far beyond the football media

 

[SiMCFC]

Have the Auditors ever made a public statement? I've never seen one so far but they have been referenced quite a bit lately within negative articles. I know people in the finance industry and one thing you never ever do is try to make out that an auditor is in some way complicit in anything remotely dodgy, their licensing alone wouldn't be worth it and to be honest it wouldn't suprise me if they also go after UEFA if they are accused of doing anything untoward.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Interesting that City succeeded in introducing 3 new documents (A-92, A-93 and A-94) as evidence after the deadline for submissions had passed. CAS had another sideswipe at UEFA with regard to this. Even though the appeal was lost on technical grounds the possible value of making the appeal is that CAS are now fully aware of how UEFA have conducted proceedings in this case.

61. The Panel noted that Exhibit A-92 is a publication in a newspaper and therefore a publicly accessible document that was not available at the time MCFC filed its Appeal Brief (i.e. 11 June 2019). The Panel also considered it appropriate for MCFC to keep the Panel updated on alleged further leaks to the media by UEFA considering the similar allegations already expressed in the Appeal Brief, which possibility was also expressly reserved by MCFC in its letter to the CAS Court Office dated 22 July 2019. The Panel therefore decided to admit this document on file based on exceptional circumstances.

62. Exhibit A-93 and A-94 are letters sent by UEFA to MCFC on 11 and 29 July 2019 that were not available at the time of filing the Appeal Brief. MCFC relied on these documents to corroborate its argument that the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber were not fair and argued that it should not be prevented from relying on these documents because UEFA chose not to disclose the existence of such evidence until after the deadlines for MCFC to file its submissions with the CAS had passed.

63. The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances.

It's the last of these that I find particularly interesting. Disclosure takes place for a number of reasons, mainly so that the defendant can see the evidence against it in full, thus ensuring a fair trial. But one reason is so that the Court can be sure that no documents have been created and backdated to suit an emerging argument. We were assured.that full dusclosure had taken place on 11th July but, over two weeks later, the "scope document" appeared.

A scoping document is important in any investigation because it is part of the investigation plan and sets out the parameters of the investigation. That, might include, for example, time period or particular documents. It not only ensures a focused investigation from the investigator's perspective but also, from an evidential point of view, ensures that the investigation isn't just a fishing exercise designed to dig up any dirt. It intrigues me that this wasn't produced until after we had been assured that we had full disclosure. I'm sure that the club will be seeking answers.