BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
We're almost completely in the dark and anything we write is near total speculation. Some of the speculation is interesting and may turn out to be accurate: some of it (like assessing the importance of the influence of the breakfast of CAS reps on proceedings) most certainly isn't. So I'm going to add my two pennyworth to the speculation and hope its of a bit of value.
The publication of the stolen emails was a godsend for certain officials at UEFA because it gave them an excuse to reopen the question of City' s compliance with FFP in a period when we were felt to be most vulnerable. Many within UEFA and without felt Infantino had taken too soft a line and City had got away with it. I doubt that, when all is said and done, the emails will count for much but that may be some way down the line but they serve a purpose because they appear damning and appear to show City as "cheats". That impression is good enough for many whatever evidence City bring forward to the contrary; the majority believe they "know we're guilty" so the evidence is irrelevant. From the sound of it City have cooperated with AC and IC and furnished an impressive number of documents in support. The AC and IC have not necessarily ignored these documents in the sense of not even looking at them, but rather in the sense that they have accorded almost total importance to the "new" evidence, the stolen documents.
City are convinced that the reasons for this are "political", either in the sense that many at UEFA want to settle an old score with City, or that certain clubs are concerned that they cannot compete with City and are hoping to use FFP as they always have to destroy City's ability to compete with them ore, more sinisterly, because foreign powers are working to undermine City and thus Abu Dhabi. City's appeal will include details of sponsorship deals involving all the above interest groups presumably to show that City have done nothing which UEFA has found to be a violation of FFP when other clubs have done it. This brings together the twp prongs of City's defence, the claim that the evidence of wrongdoing is simply not there and the process which asserted that it was is hopelessly inconsistent.
The publication of the stolen emails was a godsend for certain officials at UEFA because it gave them an excuse to reopen the question of City' s compliance with FFP in a period when we were felt to be most vulnerable. Many within UEFA and without felt Infantino had taken too soft a line and City had got away with it. I doubt that, when all is said and done, the emails will count for much but that may be some way down the line but they serve a purpose because they appear damning and appear to show City as "cheats". That impression is good enough for many whatever evidence City bring forward to the contrary; the majority believe they "know we're guilty" so the evidence is irrelevant. From the sound of it City have cooperated with AC and IC and furnished an impressive number of documents in support. The AC and IC have not necessarily ignored these documents in the sense of not even looking at them, but rather in the sense that they have accorded almost total importance to the "new" evidence, the stolen documents.
City are convinced that the reasons for this are "political", either in the sense that many at UEFA want to settle an old score with City, or that certain clubs are concerned that they cannot compete with City and are hoping to use FFP as they always have to destroy City's ability to compete with them ore, more sinisterly, because foreign powers are working to undermine City and thus Abu Dhabi. City's appeal will include details of sponsorship deals involving all the above interest groups presumably to show that City have done nothing which UEFA has found to be a violation of FFP when other clubs have done it. This brings together the twp prongs of City's defence, the claim that the evidence of wrongdoing is simply not there and the process which asserted that it was is hopelessly inconsistent.