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

[Rammy Blue]

I don't think an owner is allowed to directly put money in at an over market value. Especially when the sponsor is his own company.

Wasn’t over market value.

Why are you stating that?

 

[sir baconface]

I suspect we aren’t lily-white in terms of compliance but what the fcuk? FFP is a protection racket, so ...

• We hit UEFA each and every way we can. If the CAS appeal is won solely on procedural niceties, that will do fine. They’ll hurt while we laugh.

• Regardless of CAS outcome, we pursue them on FFP legality and rinse the conniving cnuts if we win. They had the opportunity to back off but provoked a fight.

• Football is totally tribal. We haven’t killed Italians, evicted Munich families or been subsidised by the Spanish government but we’ll still be oil-fuelled cheats whichever way it goes. Well, when you challenge the darling elite, you become hard-nosed bastards and no longer “ickle ole Citeh”.

• Pep is already at a crossroad and quite possibly on the brink of leaving without having made waves in the CL. He’s neither a son of Stockport nor a god. A top manager and great if he stays to rebuild. If he moves on, though, so do we.

• Let’s have this in context. We’ve been in the third division, ridiculed and almost broken. We’ve survived Bovril, York away, Wilfred Bony, the GPC and the Kippax urinals. We kept our core support and bounced back big time. The current episode is nit-shit against the backdrop of our history.

 

[give it to gordon]

Mansour doesn’t own Etihad.

he does if you believe what the bbc news at 10 said on Friday !

 

[paulchapo]

mullock is a journo i trust,he has done a good spread on us today with lots of quote from a senior source ,calm,reassuring,it's not armageddon and we were expecting it,sam has droped out of my top 3,only mullock and samuels left with a mention for the times

We probably were expecting it once we refused the supposed deal if that ever happened. The club might be relaxed as they were told, "Look we know we haven't got enough to stick but the cartel are baying for blood. If you refuse the deal we'll ban you but you will win the appeal." Hopefully something like this is the case.

 

[John Wayne]

You can as long as the money then comes directly from the sponsors and represents market value.

As Mark Stephens, a top UK lawyer, has said today: "Interestingly there is no precedent for UEFA second guessing what is the correct amount for commercial sponsorship deals."

Can anyone enlighten me on the mechanism that UEFA uses to assess "market value"? Is it a scientific formula? Equally, isn't the value of a sponsorship what it's worth to the sponsor rather than the sponsored?

 

[cjn]

we have nothing to worry about ,

FFP introduced by plattini ( whos been arrested for corruption )

UEFA got there information of a hacker ( hacker been arrested )

Don’t see how we can loose in court especially with all the top lawyers we have

While it obviously isn't that simple for a bunch of reasons, the fact is that litigation is messy and the inherent uncertainly of a trial, even when you mostly have the facts on your side, makes the whole thing an extremely risky proposition. I'm sure we will have the best counsel that money can buy, but there is a very good reason that some 90% of lawsuits end up in a pre-trial settlement, when you go before a judge you just never fucking know. In my opinion we've fucked up royally by allowing it to get anywhere close to this far.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

I don't think an owner is allowed to directly put money in at an over market value. Especially when the sponsor is his own company.

No offence mate, but it seems like you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

 

[HarrytheBlue]

There's an awful lot of hyperbole about.

If any ban is upheld. I would expect City to take legal action against FFP and in particular to fight the notion that we should have to comply with the loss making rules when we have been put in a position that robs us of huge sums of income. All this shit has to be challenged in court.

Absolutely, spot on.

 

[give it to gordon]

As Mark Stephens, a top UK lawyer, has said today: "Interestingly there is no precedent for UEFA second guessing what is the correct amount for commercial sponsorship deals."

Can anyone enlighten me on the mechanism that UEFA uses to assess "market value"? Is it a scientific formula? Equally, isn't the value of a sponsorship what it's worth to the sponsor rather than the sponsored?

yea its simple

you want to sponsor a G14 club that's a billion

you want to sponsor a non G14 club that's £2.50p please

 

[M18CTID]

Good.

More evidence of the leaks that will be the backbone of our defence.

Concerning if true but how would Conn know this? He seems to be the only one running with it. Also, if they do have invoices that put us bang to rights, then surely they would’ve issued their punishment way sooner than they did.

 

[gh_mcfc]

Every city employee should be doing a subject access request under gdpr to uefa. They will be legally bound to disclose any personal data ( definition on information commission website) and what they have done it and who they have shared it with . No court required for this irs the law. Huge potential fines

 

[City_Sean]

Mansour doesn’t own Etihad.

Yeah my bad. Should have fact checked!

 

[cjn]

Haha,FFS.

What's wrong with what I said? Even if we haven't broken any actual rules (which I would probably bet on), we were pretty clearly looking to exploit any possible loophole or grey area. And the whole Etihad cashflow situation obviously wasn't contemplated as being okay when they drew them up. That's why I said spirit of the rules.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Concerning if true but how would Conn know this? He seems to be the only one running with it. Also, if they do have invoices that put us bang to rights, then surely they would’ve issued their punishment way sooner than they did.

I sincerely doubt we would provide evidence to UEFA that would kneecap us, so realistically they're either misrepresenting what they've been given, misinterpreting it or have been the beneficiaries of additional hacked material that they haven't yet revealed publicly.

 

[Ric]

Yeah my bad. Should have fact checked!

Easy mistake to make when we have the BBC peddling that particular untruth!

 

[Zenmanc]

Lot of City blue tinted shades here. We're not innocent, we've known that for years. Its funny how supposed adults can be so biased just because they "bleed for their club". I agree the penalty itself is harsh and think we should fight to have it reduced but we deserve to pay some form of penalty.
I keep seeing the sentiment "other clubs do it all the time." If that makes skirting and breaking rules okay I sure as hell hope you aren't raising children or have a job that overlaps with my interests.
That it's us... of course they are twisting the knife and piling on but we fucked up and we should be held accountable.
That this is all some elaborate anti-City conspiracy is rubbish and makes me realize how much sport- as much as it can unite- does just as much to polarize.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Every city employee should be doing a subject access request under gdpr to uefa. They will be legally bound to disclose any personal data ( definition on information commission website) and what they have done it and who they have shared it with . No court required for this irs the law. Huge potential fines

I never knew this but I like it if true.

 

[waspish]

What's wrong with what I said? Even if we haven't broken any actual rules (which I would probably bet on), we were pretty clearly looking to exploit any possible loophole or grey area. And the whole Etihad cashflow situation obviously wasn't contemplated as being okay when they drew them up. That's why I said spirit of the rules.

So because of the spirit of the game they fine us 30m and 2 year ban?! But a racist club gets fined a pittance or still stay in the competition?!

 

[kaz7]

While it obviously isn't that simple for a bunch of reasons, the fact is that litigation is messy and the inherent uncertainly of a trial, even when you mostly have the facts on your side, makes the whole thing an extremely risky proposition. I'm sure we will have the best counsel that money can buy, but there is a very good reason that some 90% of lawsuits end up in a pre-trial settlement, when you go before a judge you just never fucking know. In my opinion we've fucked up royally by allowing it to get anywhere close to this far.

What do you sugest we do? roll over so they can keep coming back or stand up and finish it? In 2014 we couldn't see this coming,we took a punishment expecting that to be the end of it,this is spiteful shite lead by our domestic rivals and the protected cartel,it will never end if we dont do this

 

[John Wayne]

I sincerely doubt we would provide evidence to UEFA that would kneecap us, so realistically they're either misrepresenting what they've been given, misinterpreting it or have been the beneficiaries of additional hacked material that they haven't yet revealed publicly.

Which would be inadmissible as City have a right to see all evidence against the club in any disciplinary hearing.