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.
Metalartin said:
I think he could only make a decision on the evidence submitted by the investigation. If they omitted City's supporting evidence as City claim, then there is your answer.
Click to expand...

Do we know that for sure? Would he rule against us knowing our evidence was omitted? I know UEFA needed to rush to beat the time limit but he didn’t have to presumably.
 
Cobwebcat said:
Do we know that for sure? Would he rule against us knowing our evidence was omitted? I know UEFA needed to rush to beat the time limit but he didn’t have to presumably.
Click to expand...
We don't know anything for sure, nor do we know how much he knew about anything being omitted. I trust City over UEFA's "impartial" investigators lead by someone like Leterme, personally.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Not so George I'm afraid. We were never go to be inside FFP limits. However we were planning to use wages paid in 2012 under pre-June 2010 contracts as mitigation, thereby avoiding sanctions. It was the relevant calculation of those which UEFA changed after it was too late.
Click to expand...

To most that means within limits as it was an allowed mitigation
 
Gordyola said:
So if I understand that correctly this clause in using CAS is null and void? If City so choose they don't need to go to CAS

Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.
Click to expand...
This was my understanding too but nothing has changed. Dunno why.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No. We failed FFP by a considerable difference. You're effectively saying that because someone was found guilty and wasn't sent to jail, they were innocent.
Click to expand...
No, that's not the situation, we should not have been sanctioned, FFP wasn't 'failed'. Failure i.e. a 'sanction' - which is the only meaningful definition of the term - was mitigated and thereby not permitted by the rules. Until UEFA corruptly changed the goalposts that is. Come on Colin - get it straight and stop this nonsense. We didn't fail FFP, you of all people are completely wrong, the rules provided for mitigation and were bent in order to damage us.
 
George Hannah said:
No, that's not the situation, we should not have been sanctioned, FFP wasn't 'failed'. Failure i.e. a 'sanction' - which is the only meaningful definition of the term - was mitigated and thereby not permitted by the rules. Until UEFA corruptly changed the goalposts that is. Come on Colin - get it straight and stop this nonsense. We didn't fail FFP, you of all people are completely wrong, the rules provided for mitigation and were bent in order to damage us.
Click to expand...
You can't mitigate something you passed. You could only use that provision if you'd failed. That was the rule.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You can't mitigate something you passed. You could only use that provision if you'd failed. That was the rule.
Click to expand...
Mitigation being available means there are justifiable reasons for not meeting certian accounting requirements. The rule was that inside certain tolerances there was no sanction. They changed the rules and because of that and only that we fell foul of the overall regulations. As the principal investigator of this injustice you above all need to understand this Colin - it is not an accounting issue it is simply logic. Think about the dippers meeting FFP because their expenditure was deemed developmental and therefore out of scope in calculating a loss in the same way as our prior contractual wages should have been treated.
 
Last edited:
George Hannah said:
Mitigation being available means there are justifiable reasons for not meeting certian accounting requirements. The rule was that inside certain tolerances there was no sanction. They changed the rules and because of that and only that we fell foul of the overall regulations. You need to understand this - it is not an accounting issue it is simply logic. Think about the dippers meeting FFP because their expenditure was deemed developmental and therefore out of scope in calculating a loss in the same way as our prior contractual wages should have been treated.
Click to expand...
If you’re that interested in the dippers ffp failure, not just the invisible ground search the pre 2010 contracts on their this is anal field forum. You have to hope it’s wrong but the swiftness of their dismissal compared to our shit 8 years later is contrasting
 
Last edited:
Stoned Rose said:
That result was a nice big fat fuck off to those bent ****s.

Felt the ref was the fairest we've ever had in the CL tonight.

Perhaps they are trying to keep us sweet.
Click to expand...
maybe they are,it was such a different ref performance this time,those in doubt must be able to see the between what we usually get and ask questions
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top