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

[deano ou812]

Martin Samuel, MailSport: "Whatever City have done wrong, the entire playing field was shaped by the elite of European football for their own gain. The game, as it has now been framed by UEFA and a privileged elite, is bent." [via @MailSport]

Is that a quote from his piece on Saturday ?

 

[Nightmare Walking]

When does a file become a dossier?

You will know by the time I have stopped sending you emails. At present it is a few files. By the time I am through it will be a dossier. :-D

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Presumably the "earliest opportunity" would have been Friday night?

Not necessarily. Might precede that tbf. City may have been notified in advance. Genuinely don’t know. Anyone else?

 

[kaz7]

Is that a quote from his piece on Saturday ?

New one out tonite i think,the link is in his thread

 

[BobbyBoy]

Because our owners personal fortune makes uefa look like paupers.

But its the Club challenging UEFA, it's not individual's, it's one business and their revenue challenging another business and their revenue. This will be a pain in the hole for UEFA but I can't see them being overly concerned by the financial side of it.

They are separate , we have one owner & it isn’t a country .

I'm aware of that, that's why I questioned bringing "the state" into it for the legal challenge.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

There is a lot of mixed messages in this thread and on this site. City have a turnover of circa £400m, UEFA have circa £2.7bn, if City are not state owned how is it that the weight/power/wealth of a state comes into play over a court case? Surely they are seperate or they not?

Revenue £535M in 18/19, will be higher now, get your facts right.

City are not state owned ffs, that is so lazy.

City's owner is incredibly wealthy, he could outspend uefa many times over during a prolonged legal battle.

 

[bluemonkey71]

UEFA have their own sponsors. If the shit hits their fan they will run for the hills.

 

[kaz7]

But its the Club challenging UEFA, it's not individual's, it's one business and their revenue challenging another business and their revenue. This will be a pain in the hole for UEFA but I can't see them being overly concerned by the financial side of it.



I'm aware of that, that's why I questioned bringing "the state" into it for the legal challenge.

We are ot owned by a state,we are valued at over 2 billion and have sold shares to very wealthy american and chinese companies,i think you have been told about the state bit a couple of times before

 

[LucahArchie10]

The case will come down to what evidence UEFA has been able to compile to supplement the leaked emails. If its the leaked emails and tumbleweed (which is what City are hedging), then I reckon we will give 'em an absolute bath in CAS - after all we are in a position of power in all this, in terms of having access to 'context documents' that UEFA simply has no jurisdiction to get - even with whatever information gathering powers they have under FFP. If UEFA has done the hard yards, corroborated what is implied by the dirty emails through other evidence - then we are up a creek most likely, and deservedly so if other evidence can support their arguments to show we 'misled them' about the source of funding underlying sponsorship (not the very clearly chosen words in UEFAs statmeent - this is not about 'overvaluing' our sponsorships, but 'overstating' them - which to me suggests a focus on the source of the funds in the case of UEFA, not the absolute quantum (which was what got us the first time around)


But if UEFA has been bluffing, and the hacked emails are basically it, then if our lawyers are worth anything like what we will pay them, then we will have them over a barrel.

Its a fascinating example of John Nash 'game theory' at play. Lots of brikmanship, lots of gamesmanship, lots of strategy based on 'i think they know this, or think this, or have this'. It seems likely one party or the other will take a heavy beating if it is all played out either in CAS or later on in the courts. Hence my view is that the most likely outcome of CAS is a negotiated settlement with a much lower punishment.

Our owner will not take anything but a win?

We are now all or nothing surely?

 

[BobbyBoy]

The value is immaterial. What matters is who pays for it.

That's my point, the Club will be paying for any legal challenge.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Martin Samuel, MailSport: "Whatever City have done wrong, the entire playing field was shaped by the elite of European football for their own gain. The game, as it has now been framed by UEFA and a privileged elite, is bent." [via @MailSport]

Someone has finally said it.
Well done Martin.
And like him or not, tonight even Gary Neville more or less called it a cartel.
He used the word franchise but but he intimated the clubs who are behind it.

Now would a few more stand up please.

 

[kaz7]

That's my point, the Club will be paying for any legal challenge.

Our owner can pay our legal fees,there is no law against that if needs be

 

[bumbleblue]

UEFA have their own sponsors. If the shit hits their fan they will run for the hills.

True, perhaps we can put some pressure on their sponsors . MasterCard can fuck off. Who else can we boycott! Heineken & Amstel.. blurrgh. Ooh Nissan .. have a word!

 

[Damanino]

Urgent talks over how Manchester City will reimburse leading players - who have Champions League bonuses stipulated in their contracts - are already underway. City officials have promised to regularly update players on the forthcoming appeal against the suspension.

Some players receive bonuses - up to seven-figure sums - from the point Manchester City qualify for the Champions League. City officials have already intimated to players that they expect, at the very least, to have their two-season UEFA suspension halved.

(Daily Mail)

Hope the bold part is not really something we hope to happen. Then Uefa wins as thats exactly why they gave such a huge ban that if it gets halved its still a fucking shit for City.

 

[bluwes]

I think we all secretly know what will happen. CAS will give us a reduced punishment, to appease UEFArce, and the ruling cartel clubs.
I can’t see a ‘fair and independent hearing’ being done, no matter what Sorriano thinks. This will open the gate for PL to try and stick their iron in the fire and get a points reduction.
Maybe our owners should now just dump a billion pound of debt on us, then carry on spending. It’s what the rags seem to be able to do without any scrutiny.

We are not going to accept any punishment whatsoever. Gloves are off . We took the "pinch" in 2014. We are now out to destroy them

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

That's my point, the Club will be paying for any legal challenge.

That's bollocks since when did the owner of any business have to pay court costs out of the actual business itself?

A wealthy individual with several business interests can pay his lawyers from whatever means he has.

 

[bluwes]

David Conn on the guardian football weekly podcast after taking his magic mushrooms:

Manchester City have NOT been given this penalty because they breached FFP rules in the sense they made too much of a loss or their finances weren't what they should have bee, which obviously is what FFP is all about trying to make clubs live within their means and not make too much of a loss, but this is not what City have been found guilty.......

The issue is they were deceitful and not truthful when they said it was Etihad and not Sheikh Mansour the owner who was clearly paying £57mil.
It was a breach of trust which is always a worse offence than the offence itself...an example (but not a direct paralllel) is it is an offence if you get pulled for speeding you get 3 points on your licence and you might get a fine..but if you lie and you were driving the car when in fact your partner was driving the car well that becomes a very serious offence and you go to prison...so City are not being done for a breach of FFP they are being for a serious breach of trust"

Yet he knows with the info today, that the executive council of Abu Dhabi gave the money to Etihad to cover their commitment to City and not the Sheik, but he still continues to peddle his anti City agenda...………...City fan my arse

 

[Silva2021]

No he has said we've done it. He quite deliberately said we have been found guilty of it, and then went on a rant about how disgusting and out of control it was for Manchester City to call into question the integrity of the two UEFA panels.

That's key to understanding Conn's position. His starting point is that we are definitely guilty and we are completely wrong to complain about fairness or lack of process or question independence of the decision.

That's why when @Prestwich_Blue shows him that ADUG didn't fund Etihad's deals, he doesn't say "Hmm that's at odds to what I saw in der spiegel and not exactly what we're hearing from UEFA", he says "It's just another way they are guilty".

As a man in orthopaedic shoes says, I stand corrected.

For the record Prestwich Blue does excellent work and whilst no doubt a bit of bias may come in from time to time, his information is the most reliable out there and more balanced. I hope the club unofficially recognise how he helps our fan base.

I am sure this is covered elsewhere but the whole deal does not make sense. If we over-stated sponsorships I get what we are accused off but the deal with Etihad, where we supposedly so desperate for a company we could top up that we have kit sponsorship and stadium naming rights for £8 million??? This includes consistent CL and seasons we won the league.

Just doesn’t seem right if they had paid 50 million and the sheikh topped it up to 80 million (I could see the potential for that scenario, not saying it happened) but to sell all that for just 8 million seems crazy.

The only other explanation is that it is not circumventing FFP at all, but being given deliberately cheap to help the airline out and then money topped up to City is to give the market value.

I just wonder why this is not talked about?

 

[BobbyBoy]

That's bollocks since when did the owner of any business have to pay court costs out of the actual business itself?

A wealthy individual with several business interests can pay his lawyers from whatever means he has.

And if they win and end up suing who gets to keep the money?

 

[91:23]

One thing I learnt listening to Prestwich Blues contribution on Ian Cheesmans blog is that new owners are now allowed by UEFA to invest in their club (not just infrastructure)
I think he mentioned 4 years
Was City offered the same latitude-I don’t think so.
Surely CAS will take this into consideration when dealing with our case otherwise they will comparing apples and oranges!

Pretty sure Colin said on last nights vlog with Ian that CAS tend to take the law as it stands in the present. Therefore we get the same latitude