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

[Norbiton]

I thought UEFA had questioned our assertion that Etihad were not a related party but had accepted that the deal was fair value so didn't pursue the matter when we agreed to take the "pinch"

 

[Saddleworth2]

I'd be pissed off with a technicality there'll still be a big cloud over our good name, bit risky but I think I'd rather be found guilty then we can go for them with nothing to lose & be a proper party pooper.

you and me both. Getting off on a technicality will do nothing to repair our brand. We need to be seen to be innocent of wrongdoing.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I would have thought that the late disclosure of the scope document was sufficient in itself to get any process disqualified. A bit of me thinks that is what the game is so we can be described as getting off on a technicality.

Yup, UEFA have committed two of the worst breaches of professional standards in conducting investigations. 1) breach of confidentiality and 2) failure to disclose.

A word of warning, though, Courts are a law unto themselves. I've seen cases where one side or the other has had real bollockings from the judge both before and during the trial but still got a succesful verdict. This case hasn't reached Court yet and whether it ever does now depends on UEFA's decision. Clearly, if it does decide to punish us, the matter will go to Court and, then, as I say, nothing is a forgone conclusion.

Bear in mind, also, that what we've seen so far alludes only to the shambolic investigation process. If that is a reflection of the whole, I should imagine that the"evidence" against us is equally questionable and the appeal would be extended to additional matters since, as part of the judgement, it would be available as evidence in our appeal against the decision.

In short, in my opinion, this particular can of worms has a whole lot more worms in it than we have seen so far.

 

[cityzen81]

I'd be pissed off with a technicality there'll still be a big cloud over our good name, bit risky but I think I'd rather be found guilty then we can go for them with nothing to lose & be a proper party pooper.

you and me both. Getting off on a technicality will do nothing to repair our brand. We need to be seen to be innocent of wrongdoing.

Unless UEFA come out and clear us of any wrong doing then unfortunately I think the damage that has been done is irreparable.

The only way for UEFA to save face is ban us, then we take it to CAS and “get off on technicalities” that way they have appeased the old guard by saying at least they tried to punish us and they get to keep the farce that is FFP going.

We may go down the route of trying to sue certain papers or journalists but I think even CAS mentioned in the report that although we had possible merit we also had no evidence of the leaks and damage to reputation of our brand coming from any particular individual or organisation. Yes we all know who has done it put proving it in a court of law will be nigh impossible

Of course this is just my opinion and we have no real way of knowing how this will play out

 

[Saddleworth2]

Yup, UEFA have committed two of the worst breaches of professional standards in conducting investigations. 1) breach of confidentiality and 2) failure to disclose.

A word of warning, though, Courts are a law unto themselves. I've seen cases where one side or the other has had real bollockings from the judge both before and during the trial but still got a succesful verdict. This case hasn't reached Court yet and whether it ever does now depends on UEFA's decision. Clearly, if it does decide to punish us, the matter will go to Court and, then, as I say, nothing is a forgone conclusion.

Bear in mind, also, that what we've seen so far alludes only to the shambolic investigation process. If that is a reflection of the whole, I should imagine that the"evidence" against us is equally questionable and the appeal would be extended to additional matters since, as part of the judgement, it would be available as evidence in our appeal against the decision.

In short, in my opinion, this particular can of worms has a whole lot more worms in it than we have seen so far.

I had thought that by now, after the achievements of the last two years and the sheer beauty of the football we play, we would be an accepted and respected part of the elite by now but that clearly isn't happening. The only way for us to gain acceptance by the governing bodies and by the media in this country is to use brutal force and litigate the fuck out of anyone that steps over the line and bans individual journalists that are incapable of demonstrating balance in their reporting of us. Being nice has not worked for the last ten years and it sure as god isn't going to start working now.

 

[petrusha]

I thought UEFA had questioned our assertion that Etihad were not a related party but had accepted that the deal was fair value so didn't pursue the matter when we agreed to take the "pinch"

That's what the Der Spiegel leaks suggested. In the final analysis, it made no difference whether Etihad was treated as a related party or not as the full amount of the sponsorship was allowable even if it were a related party.

However, in the case of two second-tier sponsorships (Etisalat and Aarbaar, IIRC), they claimed that the auditors rejected the assertion that the parties were unrelated and insisted that the value of the sponsorships was inflated. City undertook in the settlement agreement not to increase the value of those two sponsorships for at least two years and one presumes that the club didn't acknowledge the relevant sponsors to be related parties. We know that the former of those points is true as the UEFA press statement about the settlement agreement alluded to the fact. We can't be sure about the latter point without more detail on the settlement agreement but it seems a fair assumption.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I had thought that by now, after the achievements of the last two years and the sheer beauty of the football we play, we would be an accepted and respected part of the elite by now but that clearly isn't happening. The only way for us to gain acceptance by the governing bodies and by the media in this country is to use brutal force and litigate the fuck out of anyone that steps over the line and bans individual journalists that are incapable of demonstrating balance in their reporting of us. Being nice has not worked for the last ten years and it sure as god isn't going to start working now.

I long ago reached the conclusion that the PL are the marketing arm of United, Arsenal and Liverpool and that UEFA is the marketing arm of the G18 which is those three plus their counterparts across Europe. That isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact that the financial success of all those organisations is symbiotic. They are a creation of one another.

And the "media" has to be complicit in that because, it too, is financially dependent on the success of the product. I'd go further. I'd suggest that those with a sufficiently high profile are receiving money directly from the recipients of their product placement. If I want my product at the top of Google searches, I pay for it. Why wouldn't you pay to have an army of people putting it out on their specific platform ?

 

[Jacko1956]

Couldn’t agree more my friend, I put it like that to avoid any debate with any apologists, too busy putting up a 14’ shed :-) , I’m seriously considering dumping my TV to avoid paying for another license, and avoid any doubt, I never watch or listen to anything BBC related at home .

Wouldn't need to worry about the BBC for much longer as they wont exist in a recognisable format for much longer. Personally would much rather pay and have choice of picking what I chose to watch than having to fork out £150 a year and have no say on what content they provide. Hopefully Dan Rouan and the rest of their parasitic sport reporters will have to gain some meaningful employment elsewhere shortly!

 

[Prater70]

Well put Cityzen 81,but always remember Kaldoons statement. " Guess what, We know".

 

[petrusha]

Nick McGeehan here, folks, claiming that the 'CAS ... says [MCFC] approach "artificial and misleading" and "legally wrong"' when that text appears in para 51 of the CAS judgment clearly qualified by the staement that "The submissions of UEFA ... may be summarised as follows".

So, in representing UEFA's submissions as the impartial view of the CAS, is he simply mistaken, or being disingenuous, or being intellectually dishonest? I know what I think.

 

[bluemoon32]

Ban us already, just do it and we can all move on and talk about something more important....football

 

[Gordyola]

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?

Complain about BBC websites here https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint "Please choose" is step 1 with all the media channels that the BBC have listed

 

[Kenward Garg]

Pep must know this is why City fans are at odds with UEFA. At least one of the reasons anyway.

We want to win the CL but we don't believe we are being given a fair chance.

God UEFA are in a mess over this.

Yep. Alas, you make your bed, now lie in it.

 

[nmc]

Nick McGeehan here, folks, claiming that the 'CAS ... says [MCFC] approach "artificial and misleading" and "legally wrong"' when that text appears in para 51 of the CAS judgment clearly qualified by the staement that "The submissions of UEFA ... may be summarised as follows".

So, in representing UEFA's submissions as the impartial view of the CAS, is he simply mistaken, or being disingenuous, or being intellectually dishonest? I know what I think.

He’s sinking as low as Castles. Utter jerk.

 

[Jacko1956]

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

Ban us already, just do it and we can all move on and talk about something more important....football

We wont be banned if they had enough evidence they would have done it months back. UEFA are looking at ways of saving face and trying to come out of this with some sort of vindication to investigate us again. The plonker they chose to chair the investigation fucked up big time going public on some yank news paper about his findings and what he was going to recommend as a punishing to us ! As soon as the mole for Despiegel was jailed for fraudulent hacking into we sites the case fell apart and that knob of a chairman lost all credibility!

 

[Kenward Garg]

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Come on City!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Nick McGeehan here, folks, claiming that the 'CAS ... says [MCFC] approach "artificial and misleading" and "legally wrong"' when that text appears in para 51 of the CAS judgment clearly qualified by the staement that "The submissions of UEFA ... may be summarised as follows".

So, in representing UEFA's submissions as the impartial view of the CAS, is he simply mistaken, or being disingenuous, or being intellectually dishonest? I know what I think.

Typical shite dig at the end of the tweet as well.

Haha his pinned tweet says everything about him.

 

[Gordyola]

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

Thats unfair, you are unaware as to how hard she does work. Do you think that she would still be in a job, in fact promoted, if she didn't do any work?

 

[Marvin]

McGeehan works for the Washington based Human Rights Watch.

The refugees he claims to speak for might have something to say about Washington DC.

 

[Jacko1956]

City are not stupid they went to CAS knowingly that they couldnt get involved to UEFA officially charged us but what it did was give UEFA a foresight into what to expect if the ban us , a long drawn out legal battle that only City have the money to pursue to the hilt @