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.
Parisian said:


This is an interesting comment from the head of commercial activities of OctagonUK, one of the partner of UEFA and trusted audit firm used for fair value market assessment.

He wonders why Puma made this statement. If they weren't sure, it would have been best for them not to comment. So City must have given them solid proof of being cleared in an appeal.

This is 2014 Octagon valuation of City sponsorship :



Worth noting that the minimum value given to Etihad deal is 40 and maximum is 50. Even though it is lower than the actual deal, it is nowhere near close to the 8 M figure. This alone should tell the attacks on City aren't legit.
Click to expand...


Octagon going of their twitter feed seem very fond of everything LFC
 
M18CTID said:
City said way back - when it came out that the IC had referred it upstairs to the AC I think - that they'd submitted a huge dossier of evidence to UEFA. That was something like 8 or 9 months before Friday's verdict was announced so how that equates to not being cooperative is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I think UEFA has an admission of guilt in mind !
 
Eds said:
If the stuff on Twitter is true... I assume you mean the information being discussed by City fans rather than the drivel been spouted by the KFA journos?
Click to expand...


THREAD/ In January 2014, Uefa’s investigatory arm hired sports consultancy Octagon to conduct an independent review of #ManCity's current sponsorship contracts amid concern some of the money had come from “related parties” - entities with financial or other close links to the



https://mobile.twitter.com/Lu_Class_/status/1229418697388953600/photo/2
 
UEFA are getting to be like that fart that gets trapped in the cheeks and irritable working of physical allows it to kind of fizz out in installments often at embarrassing times. No respect for witnesses or the supporting underwear (us fans).
 
Marvin said:
That is what I intended to say but you say it clearly. PB says Barada personally told him, or a group he was with, that Ceferin had made such an offer. This does not surprise me because some months ago there were several reports of compromise, and hawks like Tebas were grumbling.

Some excellent work by PB in the last couple of days.

  • He's shown that Etihad's sponsorship deal was underwritten by the EC of UAE and therefore payment by Sheikh Mansour, alleged via the presentation of Football Leaks, was a false conclusion.
  • He's shown that the UEFA investigative process is arbitrary and subject to manipulation by their own officers.

This does not in itself shape the CAS decision but it makes me feel more positive in its outcome. That said it's high risk.
Click to expand...

I'd have said a prejudiced process and an audit trail proving that Etihad's sponsorship wasn't funded by Sheikh Mansour pretty much gives CAS their decision on a plate.
 
blueparrot said:
From what you've said I as I understand it Etihad received money from the Abu Dhabi executive to cover it's sponsorship commitments, is that just our sponsorship or all Etihad sponsorship commitments? If it's more than just ours then surely we can point to it being how Etihad were operating with state backing, and wasn't unique to just City.
Click to expand...
Just ours as far as I know.
 
John Wayne said:
I'd have said a prejudiced process and an audit trail proving that Etihad's sponsorship wasn't funded by Sheikh Mansour pretty much gives CAS their decision on a plate.
Click to expand...
I would say so too but I am biased. I am also aware that the UEFA Adjudicatory chamber, described as semi-independent, came to the opinion that City were guilty. Were the judges influenced by recommendations from the investigatory chamber? Were they pressured? Is there evidence we don't know about?
 
acton28 said:
UEFA are getting to be like that fart that gets trapped in the cheeks and irritable working of physical allows it to kind of fizz out in installments often at embarrassing times. No respect for witnesses or the supporting underwear (us fans).
Click to expand...
I'm really hoping that they have got this wrong and were pushed by the cartel. clubs into something they were not ready for,also hoping Ceferin or whatever he is called was our guest trying to get us to accept a deal,please someone have him on tape
 
George Hannah said:
When you say 'a bit shifty' - how did we step outside 'the spirit' of the rules?
Click to expand...
Well in 2012/13 we definitely cut some corners in order to try to ensure we got enough revenue to meet the provisions governing being able to mitigate sanctions based on the level of wages paid in 2011/12 under contracts signed prior to the 2010 summer window.

That doesn't necessarily mean we did anything desperately wrong or in contravention of FFP though.
 
karen7 said:
I'm really hoping that they have got this wrong and were pushed by the cartel. clubs into something they were not ready for,also hoping Ceferin or whatever he is called was our guest trying to get us to accept a deal,please someone have him on tape
Click to expand...

Yeah, with a midget and an Alsatian
 
blueparrot said:
From what you've said I as I understand it Etihad received money from the Abu Dhabi executive to cover it's sponsorship commitments, is that just our sponsorship or all Etihad sponsorship commitments? If it's more than just ours then surely we can point to it being how Etihad were operating with state backing, and wasn't unique to just City.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this somewhere back in the thread.

Assuming Etihad were tight for cash across the board it'd not be just our deal that needed propping up and in which case we can highlight S Mansour's actions as he pays or EC as they cover deals around the globe.
 
PrezIke said:
My reply to David' Conn's recent piece attacking our reasoning for suggesting FFP was designed to stop City and similar clubs:



Here's each Tweet combined in order of how I responded:

David, maybe we need to start with the question was FFP was the best means to set financial limitations to ensure fairness whilst maintaining financial stability of clubs when there were other successful models in use? Why no wage cap based on the league/revenues?

FFP is a poorly designed system due to its complexity + relying on self-reporting which is widely known, whether in accounting or research, to garner dishonest answers. This is then worsened by the variable of hyper-competition of sport. I’d wager other clubs have also lied.

Why was FFP selected if UEFA, who 1st implemented it and I gather was replicated by the PL and other leagues, wanted a truly stable system to ensure financal stability and competitive fairness?

FFP is a system designed to be punitive, yet encourages lying that leads to punishment. That doesn’t make it OK to lie, but like other systems of justice that create problems that they supposedly want to discourage (i.e school suspensions) the system may be the larger problem.

I’m not saying “conspiracy” but it certainly is interesting that FFP was the choice when surely UEFA must have known it allowed to punish clubs with undefined and subjective consequences for failing FFP via investigations instead of a more clear cut consequences.

The NBA has a soft wage cap. If a club goes over they are penalized and there is no chance to hide this as all player wages are public. Then that money goes towards revenue sharing. It also hurts flexibility so better to stay under it. This is a much more stable and fairer system​
Click to expand...


He won't reply to that because he already knows the answer. Nick Harris admitted himself in his insane article in the Mail that the person who came up with FFP wanted it to focus on debt, and it was being looked at under that pretence until 2008.

Then around 2008 (Can't imagine what happened that year) it was changed to being based on revenue instead. Why did this happen? We already know - Michel Platini bragged about it in public. Agnelli, Berlusconi, Abramovic & co. came to him and said they didn't want to compete with Abu Dhabi's money, and something needed to be done.

So they came up with a way to force through financial controls that were absolutely miles away from the original design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top