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

[blueinsa]

As long as the ban is overturned and the fine lifted ,result.

So not guilty of any wrong doing then?

 

[blue oli]

Ultimately, I believe it will be mutually convenient for Uefa and City that the IC and AC are ruled not fit for purpose by CAS.

This is why I think Lord Pannick is on board. To tear down the regualatory process, not Uefa.

Something else will follow (a more enlightened one, perhaps?)

Which might have been the meeting at our last two group games potentially ? Rather than an offer of a fine only it could have been a ‘you want this lot gone, I want this lot gone, the only way to do it without the G14 going apeshit will be painful for you however long term........’

 

[asahartford1]

So not guilty of any wrong doing then?

Playing Champions league football next season.

 

[blueinsa]

Playing Champions league football next season.

That doesnt answer the question mate.

If we are guilty then UEFA will want sanctions its that simple as their reputation is on the line.

Same for us the other way around.

This is shit or bust for both sides.

 

[citymike1969]

If we were completely exonerated and UEFA publicly apologised to us, it still wouldn’t stop the murmurs and rumours. Some people have decided we’re corrupt and have cheated and nothing will persuade them otherwise

Well, despite their current position as runaway league leaders, some people are still very, very bitter about us ruining their best 2 chances of winning the league in the last 30 (thirty) long,long years.

 

[paulchapo]

Well, despite their current position as runaway league leaders, some people are still very, very bitter about us ruining their best 2 chances of winning the league in the last 30 (thirty) long,long years.

Ha ha in the media and in the city time forgot, Liverpool. The rest of football was overjoyed.

 

[blue oli]

Some high level shit going on

We are famous !! 2 paragraphs dedicated to us I believe

So they are admitting Manchester is blue finally ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks mate. I would suggest it be prudent for this forum to also cut Colin some slack?

He's clearly providing his expert knowledge of the FFP subject with the information that is currently out in the public domain.

It is very helpful for us as layman, but it also needs to be reconciled that Col isn't getting to see the whole picture from City (I bet he wishes he was) so it can't be allowed to be the definitive narrative, just because it is more palatable to us in terms of being cleared.

I say this as someone who is regularly privy to transfers City might be working on, yet can be nailed to the cross for anything that doesn't materialise.

Yes, I'm only putting my construct on these events based on what's in the public domain. But that email still doesn't rule out the possibility that ADUG received that money from the EC. It still potentially fits the narrative that the EC said to ADUG "Here's the difference between what Etihad are paying themselves and what you've asked for." Or that it was up to ADUG to ask the EC for that.

The thing is, if ADUG was directly funding the deal in 2013 (and there's still a way we could legitimately get away with them doing so) why wasn't it funding it in 2010, when we know the EC was covering it?

 

[Fordyboy46]

Maybe we'll get a 1 year suspended ban, but still get the fine.

 

[kaz7]

Maybe we'll get a 1 year suspended ban, but still get the fine.

We won't accept anything now soriano has put his reputation on the line

 

[valleyblue]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...acking-of-temple-of-the-white-shirted-aristos

Finally, somewhat positive a read. Overall at least.

Thanks for this, good article

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Get the distinct impression that this thread has gone from ‘City are innocent and will blow UEFA away etc’ to ‘We are not so sure now and might accept a compromise’?

 

[aguero93:20]

Get the distinct impression that this thread has gone from ‘City are innocent and will blow UEFA away etc’ to ‘We are not so sure now and might accept a compromise’?

Nah, fuck that and fuck UEFA.

 

[Pam]

Get the distinct impression that this thread has gone from ‘City are innocent and will blow UEFA away etc’ to ‘We are not so sure now and might accept a compromise’?

Not sure where you're getting that impression from

 

[M18CTID]

The der Spiegel stories did have images attatched of the emails.




If I had the energy, I would ask Christoph Winterbach or David Conn what they thought about how the email explicitly says ADUG, but David Conn has confirmed for a fact that ADUG didn't pay.

It would just be nice to see them explain the conflict. FairSkies proves Executive Committee paid, email says ADUG...the only conclusion is that the email is wrong and not a record of what happened.

But will they ever admit that?

Has anyone asked Der Spackel why they blacked out the sender? Also why the fuck does that e-mail look like it was typed out on a ZX81?!!!

 

[meltonblue]

Yes, I'm only putting my construct on these events based on what's in the public domain. But that email still doesn't rule out the possibility that ADUG received that money from the EC. It still potentially fits the narrative that the EC said to ADUG "Here's the difference between what Etihad are paying themselves and what you've asked for." Or that it was up to ADUG to ask the EC for that.

The thing is, if ADUG was directly funding the deal in 2013 (and there's still a way we could legitimately get away with them doing so) why wasn't it funding it in 2010, when we know the EC was covering it?

To be fair, we don’t know for sure it wasn’t covering it. All we know is that Etihad at the time were trying to reduce the outgoings on their books and that the 8m at the time would be potentially dealt with by the EC.

When the sponsorship went up, maybe they did decide to get ADUG to cover it, the issue was more ultimately that Etihad weren’t paying it (allegedly) with the open skies case, not proving who exactly was.

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Not sure where you're getting that impression from

Just sensed a bit of back tracking today, could be wrong though.

 

[kaz7]

Get the distinct impression that this thread has gone from ‘City are innocent and will blow UEFA away etc’ to ‘We are not so sure now and might accept a compromise’?

Erm no,the club say we are innocent so we don't accept any punishment,we can't

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Erm no,the club say we are innocent so we don't accept any punishment,we can't

Hope you are right Karen. Maybe getting the wrong end of the stick but I just sensed a bit less optimism from some of the more ‘knowledgeable’ posters today.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

To be fair, we don’t know for sure it wasn’t covering it. All we know is that Etihad at the time were trying to reduce the outgoings on their books and that the 8m at the time would be potentially dealt with by the EC.

When the sponsorship went up, maybe they did decide to get ADUG to cover it, the issue was more ultimately that Etihad weren’t paying it (allegedly) with the open skies case, not proving who exactly was.

Even if ADUG were funding part of the Etihad deal, our defence could be that UEFA (or their consultants PWC) insisted that Etihad is a related party. Owners are allowed to inject funds via related parties under FFP, as long as that is seen to be fair value. UEFA accepted our deal was fair value and anyway, it accepted far more in PSG's case, in a league nowhere near as watched as the PL and for less obvious benefit. So WTF is the problem?

And CAS might think, "Yeah. Why are UEFA attacking their own position on this? Something funny here".