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

[mrtwiceaseason]

I sent my wife a text yesterday saying: Going to the Cinema with Charlie.
Actually, I went to the pub with Christine.
The text is not evidence of what I actually did.

Pretty stupid thing to do admit to your wife you have drug problem if you ask me :+)

 

[George Hannah]

The charge always levelled against Montgomery was that he was too cautious, only fighting battles when he knew the odds were heavily in his favour and incapable of exploiting opportunities on the battlefield itself. At El Alamein the Axis forces had over-extended themselves whereas we had short supply lines and time to build up our forces. Even then he struggled and it took two attempts to achieve the crucial breakthrough.

I'd say it was more like our Stalingrad, where the Russians really had their backs to the wall and were forced back to the banks of the Volga. They were just about hanging on but were saved by a major operation that hit the weak flanks of the German armies, far behind the front and cut off the 6th Army from the rest of the Germans to the south and west of Stalingrad. Then they turned inwards and destroyed the pocket of German forces that were left. I'd say this was more our Stalingrad than El Alamein.

Baron Pannick is our Georgy Zhukov and you our Aleksandr Vasilevsky

 

[Groke]

That was Rommel's mistake too.

Hopefully, our Rommel is forced to shoot himself too!

 

[ganganvince]

Baron Pannick is our Georgy Zhukov and you our Aleksandr Vasilevsky

Are they the Meercats?

 

[KS55]

The main thing is that we do not agree to a gagging order as part of any settlement. We need to hold a major press conference after the case and systematically go through every spit and cough of our evidence. If further legal action is possible we should pursue UEFA for damages. We should also take action against those media outlets which have published false and defamatory information abut us. They haven't got a leg to stand on because, as in all civil cases, they would have to prove what they have published is true.
If possible we should also publish any evidence we have about who has been leaking to our commercial rivals. This needs to be a moment when we re-set our relationship with the media and make sure that the reputation of the club, and all its fans and staff, is protected moving forward. A gagging order would be almost as bad as a legal defeat in my view. The truth needs to come out.

The press would respond that their articles were fair comment on a matter of public interest. We would be unlikely to defeat that defence.
You are right that we need to get as much as possible into the public domain.

 

[willipp]

That should be the way it works. UEFA brought the charge and sanctioned us on the basis of evidence they claim proved it.

It almost feels like uefa have brought the charges, investigated us, then asked us to help them prove it and finally banned us for not helping them.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Some statement PB, hope you’re correct mate.

I'd also make the point that losing at Stalingrad wouldn't have been a strategic disaster for Russia, although it would have been bad. It was largely a dick-waving contest between Stalin and Hitler. Germany's strategic interests would have been better served by striking south, for the Caspian and the oil fields there. Even if they'd won at Stalingrad, they'd have still had to cross the Volga in strength, which they had no need to do. If we'd lost at El Alamein, that really would have been a strategic disaster.

 

[slbsn]

He's just a troll, probably banned previously so don't give him the oxygen he craves.

Read this story from yesterday. UEFA haven't spoken to Pinto, which I think backs up my story.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-prison-with-hard-drive-passwords-in-his-head

UEFA wouldn't speak to Pinto (who is in prison) - he is not a witness and you couldn't give his evidence any weight so it is neither here nor there.

Nevertheless, Article 13 of the Procedural Rules (https://it.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf) give theoretical scope to the IC to consider anything as evidence: "All means of evidence may be considered by the CFCB chief investigator. This includes, but is not limited to, the defendant’s testimony, witness testimonies, documents and records, recordings (audio or video), on-site inspections and expert reports."

Article 23 allows the AC scope for further evidence: "The adjudicatory chamber may request either the reporting investigator or the defendant to produce such evidence as the adjudicatory chamber may consider appropriate for the determination of the case." Importantly, "The adjudicatory chamber determines the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence offered."

This, again in theory, means that the IC and the AC could take screen grabs of an unverified magazine article as its "evidence" and unilaterally declare them to be admissible, relevant, material and with good evidential "weight."

However, in my opinion (including having now read numerous AC decisions and CAS judgments), it is extremely unlikely that UEFA's evidence amounts to screen grabs of an unverified magazine article - I don't believe that could reach the evidential hurdle especially in circumstances where the audited accounts (and no doubt the actual sponsorship contract between City and Ethiad) conflict with the few emails pictured in the article.

Constructing a narrative that its all a conspiratorial, flimsy fix that will definitely be dismissed by CAS is going to end in disappointment. City have a fight on their hands - but that is not to say they will not have many good arguments.

I do agree that the flimsy "non cooperation" charge will probably be City's failure to provide certain documents requested by UEFA with City probably arguing them to be third party documents or irrelevant. The idea the emails in the article are doctored seems like wishful thinking as well.

Read my 2 part semi-long reads here if you are interested: https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

 

[KS55]

The charge always levelled against Montgomery was that he was too cautious, only fighting battles when he knew the odds were heavily in his favour and incapable of exploiting opportunities on the battlefield itself. At El Alamein the Axis forces had over-extended themselves whereas we had short supply lines and time to build up our forces. Even then he struggled and it took two attempts to achieve the crucial breakthrough.

I'd say it was more like our Stalingrad, where the Russians really had their backs to the wall and were forced back to the banks of the Volga. They were just about hanging on but were saved by a major operation that hit the weak flanks of the German armies, far behind the front and cut off the 6th Army from the rest of the Germans to the south and west of Stalingrad. Then they turned inwards and destroyed the pocket of German forces that were left. I'd say this was more our Stalingrad than El Alamein.

Or it could be our Hastings. Oh......

 

[mexico1970]

Or it could be our Hastings. Oh......

Or it can be re-run and it'll be a Good-Win-Son.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Germany's strategic interests would have been better served by striking south, for the Caspian and the oil fields there.

Surely, Germany’s strategic interests would have been better served by not invading the Soviet Union in the first place. Hopefully our enemies will feel along the same lines in due course.

 

[JASR]

The charge always levelled against Montgomery was that he was too cautious, only fighting battles when he knew the odds were heavily in his favour and incapable of exploiting opportunities on the battlefield itself. At El Alamein the Axis forces had over-extended themselves whereas we had short supply lines and time to build up our forces. Even then he struggled and it took two attempts to achieve the crucial breakthrough.

I'd say it was more like our Stalingrad, where the Russians really had their backs to the wall and were forced back to the banks of the Volga. They were just about hanging on but were saved by a major operation that hit the weak flanks of the German armies, far behind the front and cut off the 6th Army from the rest of the Germans to the south and west of Stalingrad. Then they turned inwards and destroyed the pocket of German forces that were left. I'd say this was more our Stalingrad than El Alamein.

With the time we've been literally under Seige and still here, I'd say it's more like Leningrad:
Attacked from all sides, cut off for years, with barely a trickle of support, but undefeated and unbowed.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Agreed, it feels like people are getting a bit carried away.

People are getting way too carried away. The people (and I don’t mean UEFA) we’re up against are duplicitous, determined, powerful and manipulative. Believe nothing and trust no-one should be our watchwords. Keep focused and we may prevail. Get complacent off the back of positive, third hand, rumours, and we won’t.

 

[meltonblue]

What do you think it says ?

That even if we did, I doubt it would make any difference. That and I don't think the owners are that bothered, they've always kept things out of public unless they absolutely have to.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Or it can be re-run and it'll be a Good-Win-Son.

On me head son. Oh shit!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

People are getting way too carried away. The people (and I don’t mean UEFA) we’re up against are duplicitous, determined, powerful and manipulative. Believe nothing and trust no-one should be our watchwords. Keep focused and we may prevail. Get complacent off the back of positive, third hand, rumours, and we won’t.

Not like you to put a downer on things, mate! :-)

 

[blue oli]

Acronis are to be fair...a bit shit..Their business subscriptions weren't the best nor worked correctly.

Different type of security too, they are data back up storage ‘experts’

 

[KS55]

On me head son. Oh shit!

Reports today suggest that the FA are considering outlawing the heading of arrows. A spokesman said:
"Medical research suggests that long term damage to the eyes may occur."

 

[blueinsa]

People are getting way too carried away. The people (and I don’t mean UEFA) we’re up against are duplicitous, determined, powerful and manipulative. Believe nothing and trust no-one should be our watchwords. Keep focused and we may prevail. Get complacent off the back of positive, third hand, rumours, and we won’t.

They are out to destroy us. Forget a fine or the 2 year ban, this is an all out attempt to put us so far back it will make it so difficult to catch up again with those clubs who are behind it all.

They are not turning up with an e-mail and some no win, no fee solicitor in tow and we will have a huge fight on our hands to defeat these fuckers.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The press would respond that their articles were fair comment on a matter of public interest. We would be unlikely to defeat that defence.
You are right that we need to get as much as possible into the public domain.

A fair comment defence (usually used for opinion articles like that by Syed) can only succeed if what is published is fair, balanced, and accurate. A lot of articles have not fulfilled any of these criteria. It is a tactical judgement call for City but I have no doubt we could take some people to the cleaners if we wanted to. Some journalists also seem to have operated with malicious intent and have stupidly left content on their social media accounts which leaves them wide open.
There's nothing wrong with robust fair comment. Funnily enough I think we would struggle with a case against Matthew Syed because he is legally entitled to compare City fans to "vicious rats." That's his opinion.
But a lot of stories have essentially accused City of false accounting (presumably based on a misinterpretation of a few stolen emails). Unless that allegation is true then it is clearly libellous not just towards City but also to our auditors and accountants. Not identifying a clear culprit makes it worse because the publisher could be hit by multiple claims.
The public interest defence is not likely to succeed with private business information. This is not the same as when the MPs' expenses scandal was revealed after information was stolen and sold to the Daily Telegraph. That was public money being abused by elected politicians and clearly in the public interest.