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.
I think we're in danger of letting David Conn monopolise our thoughts and we're also running the risk of attacking FFP in its entirety. City may well be prepared to do that in the courts before this business is finished but at the moment the priority is winning the appeal and I'd like comments on whether I have a clear view of the situation as it is.
1. CAS is not the place to question the legality of FFP
2. CAS will concern itself with process almost exclusively and the only question to be dealt with is whether City received a fair hearing before IC and AC. CAS will also need to be convinced that City have been treated in a manner which is consistent with clubs in other comparable cases.
3. City will argue that UEFA are trying to reopen mattres dealt with already in 2014 and it is not admissible to punish the club twice for the same deeds (City did not accept they had done anything wrong in 2014).
4 There were irregularities in the way the club was dealt with in 2014, notably the changing of dates on which player wages were included in the calculation of allowable deductions after the submission of our accounts.
5. The accusations made are founded on documents stolen from the club and quoted out of context and thus should not be considered. The clubs accounts are an accurate statement and have been accepted by UEFA.
6 The severity of the punishment handed down was justified in part by the alleged refusal of the club to cooperate with the inquiry and yet the club initially welcomed it. In fact the club submitted 200 documents as evidence, but the court did not give the club an opportunity to present the evidence and did not even read it.
7 The IC systematically breached its obligations to confidentiality and to act in good faith which undermined the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
8 The case involving City has not been dealt with in a manner consistent with the treatment of other clubs in similar cases. The case of PSG in particular is entirely different and illustrates the whimsical nature of UEFA's processes.

If I am wrong in any of this or there are any grounds for our appeal please post in with them.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Couple of things. I don't believe CAS will be interested in the accounting side of things. All they'll be looking at is whether UEFA correctly followed its own procedures, whether we had a fair crack of the whip and, they did, whether our punishment was reasonable.

Second, I'd imagine City wouldn't bring that up as it was a leaked document, so they could hardly complain about hacked and leaked documents being used to prosecute them but use one in their defence. Its not their document to use anyway.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate but I disagree in both points. If City are convinced in their irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing, they won’t only be attacking UEFA’s procedural violations.

Secondly, that document, though leaked, if true, wouldn’t be needed. Etihad will have their own versions of it. Anything that shows the funds didn’t come from Mansour is all they need.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think we're in danger of letting David Conn monopolise our thoughts and we're also running the risk of attacking FFP in its entirety. City may well be prepared to do that in the courts before this business is finished but at the moment the priority is winning the appeal and I'd like comments on whether I have a clear view of the situation as it is.
1. CAS is not the place to question the legality of FFP
2. CAS will concern itself with process almost exclusively and the only question to be dealt with is whether City received a fair hearing before IC and AC. CAS will also need to be convinced that City have been treated in a manner which is consistent with clubs in other comparable cases.
3. City will argue that UEFA are trying to reopen mattres dealt with already in 2014 and it is not admissible to punish the club twice for the same deeds (City did not accept they had done anything wrong in 2014).
4 There were irregularities in the way the club was dealt with in 2014, notably the changing of dates on which player wages were included in the calculation of allowable deductions after the submission of our accounts.
5. The accusations made are founded on documents stolen from the club and quoted out of context and thus should not be considered. The clubs accounts are an accurate statement and have been accepted by UEFA.
6 The severity of the punishment handed down was justified in part by the alleged refusal of the club to cooperate with the inquiry and yet the club initially welcomed it. In fact the club submitted 200 documents as evidence, but the court did not give the club an opportunity to present the evidence and did not even read it.
7 The IC systematically breached its obligations to confidentiality and to act in good faith which undermined the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
8 The case involving City has not been dealt with in a manner consistent with the treatment of other clubs in similar cases. The case of PSG in particular is entirely different and illustrates the whimsical nature of UEFA's processes.

If I am wrong in any of this or there are any grounds for our appeal please post in with them.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if you are right or wrong on any of it, I think 99.9% of us are having a crash course in CAS!

But re point 6. You say City didn’t have the opportunity. I thought City weren’t interested. That City did not recognise the charges and welcomed the opportunity to present at an independent court I.e CAS? I may have my wires crossed but for them not to read 200 pages(assuming they were relevant) seems very odd
 
paulchapo said:
I bought his book ' Manchester United ruined my life' or something but found that boring, I never finished it, but it may still be lying around somewhere.
Click to expand...
Wasn't this made into a film, or possibly miniseries seem to remember watching it back in the day
 
SWP's back said:
Sorry mate but I disagree in both points. If City are convinced in their irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing, they won’t only be attacking UEFA’s procedural violations.

Secondly, that document, though leaked, if true, wouldn’t be needed. Etihad will have their own versions of it. Anything that shows the funds didn’t come from Mansour is all they need.
Click to expand...

The doc isn’t substantial enough to prove that, I doubt Etihad would want that doc getting any more exposure than it already has too.
 
domalino said:
I think people exaggerate the lack of journalists who cover City well. Ziegler, Jack Gaughan, Sam Lee, Martin Blackburn, Simon Mullock are all good.

I appreciate 5 might sound like a small number, but you've got the Times, Mail, Sun, Mirror and Athletic covered there so they have coverage.
Click to expand...

Never minded Sam Lee but even think he has become more like the other gutter press over past few days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top