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.
PL will be interesting, now they will be quick to act imo they were waiting for Uefa to deliver decision regarding the leaked emails.
 
BJL_City said:
telling to see by social media how really the motive is to get Pep gone, the fear they have for him is immense.
Click to expand...

now it's up to him if he's a man I though he is and he accepts the challenge or I lose the respect for hm if he runs away from t.
 
marco said:
i dont think there would be to much damage regarding sponsors,there only after one thing and thats pushing the brand, if we keep doing the business on field domesticaly there getting what they want,football has a short memory and chelsea have just served a ban but the sponsors stayed with them, say we get a one year ban in 3 or 4 years the general public wouldnt have a clue what it was for and for how long
Click to expand...
Just remember what happened to Tiger Woods when he had his issues. His sponsors couldn’t run away fast enough. In these “me too” days where everybody has to be squeaky clean big corporations cant afford to be associated with a tarnished brand. Do not underestimate the damage this could cause.
 
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
The reputational damage is done regardless of the outcome. Even if we win it will be “City spend £200m on lawyers” “City buy their way out of trouble”

We had a lad at school who for some reason got tarnished with a story that he shagged his dog. I very much doubt he did and it was just malicious gossip but even today almost 40 years later, if his name is mentioned, the shagging a dog gets mentioned and therein lies the problem.

This is really shit news for the club and fans whichever way people want to spin it.
Click to expand...
I keep repeating this but why are we concerned about reputations? We are already looked at as cheats, buy the league, blah blah blah what else is new?
 
Steve ireland said:
I was replying to sir baconface who said we should challenge the legality of FFP, Galatasaray did and lost:

sir baconface said: ↑
I’d just love us to get the fcukers on the legality of FFP itself. It always was a blatant protection racket (to use Martin Samuel’s apt description) but, until now, no club’s had sufficient motivation or cash to challenge it in court.
Click to expand...
They challenged it in the CAS, and my point is that we would not take that route for obvious reasons.
 
domalino said:
That's bad news if true. Always nore likely to succeed on the facts if they're on your side.

Also it means that even if we win we will still be guilty.

I'm resting my hopes that we have actually not broken the rules they claim on the old statement from ages back when the club said they supplied proof of innocence and UEFA have ignored it and first said theyd take it to a higher court...I think I'm remembering that rightly.
Click to expand...
City only really seemed to get aggressive when the leaks surfaced. Felt to me like we were in the shit but got a lucky break with UEFA cocking up and decided to pounce on it. I am absolutely certain we have not followed the rules in their entirety. Certain of it. But we are preying on UEFA’s lack of a proper and fair process. That’s what it feels like.
 
WRicko said:
The key points for me are this

One it seems clear to me that we will not only fight this at CAS but at all available courts if necessary.

Will be interesting how other courts view the credibility and legal usefulness of the materials used to find us guilty. Der Speigel say they are not hacked but they must be either hacked or stolen even if leaked by someone at the club they are still surely work product. They have not been given to a regulatory body its not whistle blowing.

My understanding is we have been found found guilty of hiding where the money came from for our sponsorship but my understanding is that our sponsorship deals are not over inflated or third party so surely it does not really matter where the money comes from. A non related third party cannot get money from our owner in order to sponsor us or it would be a related third party. It seems to me that the very definition of what we are alleged to have done is logical fallacy Our Auditors and UEFAs experts both agree on not being related party right ?

Any ruling that basically says our sponsors are related causes issues for our Auditors UEFAs experts our sponsors investor and perhaps even tax authorities and other regulators in terms of credibility the top 4 auditors (not sure who city use) Not one of them has revenue below $29 billion whilst UEFA keeps hold of few billion a year of its revenue and distributes the rest They cannot afford the legal battle if it goes as badly as it could do.
Click to expand...

BDO LLP, 3 Hardman Street, Manchester
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top