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

[@BluePhil8]

Tariq Panja goes on to say that "the current members on the CFCB bodies will be extended a year. But have not chosen to replace those that have left. Perhaps a hint that in a year's time FFP will be reformed or perhaps replaced?".

I guess FFP will have served its purpose by then if CAS were to uphold our ban.

This fits in with the talk of a UEFA civil war that was mentioned on here with Ceferin not arsed about FFP (hence the settlement discussions) but the FFP Chamber being filled with rats with vested interests. Surely recruitment is decided by Ceferin?

 

[DrBlueBob]

Surely the last should be "petite chou" or is that "petite choux"

We are not amused bouche.

 

[domalino]

This fits in with the talk of a UEFA civil war that was mentioned on here with Ceferin not arsed about FFP (hence the settlement discussions) but the FFP Chamber being filled with rats with vested interests. Surely recruitment is decided by Ceferin?

Speaking of the Civil war, David Conn has quite a go at Ceferin in his latest article. Talks about how he was elected on a promise to make the game more fair but has done nothing to help and infact made it worse.

It also has this quite funny little remark -

Uefa’s landmark governance reform of recent years, financial fair play, has been subject to misinformed and, at times, hysterical criticism in England owing to its restraint of unlimited spending by owners but it was implemented in 2009 and has since transformed the European game’s financial health.
​

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Tariq Panja goes on to say that "the current members on the CFCB bodies will be extended a year. But have not chosen to replace those that have left. Perhaps a hint that in a year's time FFP will be reformed or perhaps replaced?".

I guess FFP will have served its purpose by then if CAS were to uphold our ban.

Cynic!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

And on the other hand if our ban is overturned some heads will roll.

That was certainly the implication I read into it - or wholesale rearrangement.

 

[wolfie1988]

Aleksander Ceferin on City's ban:

"I didn't speak about case and didn't see it. Let's wait for the decision. Wouldn't be appropriate to comment."

He knows ;)

 

[Big Swifty]

If indeed it is overturned (and I'm not holding my breath), can you image the torrent of "righteous" indignation from several quarters? Carragher springs to mind. Most rag-biased journos. The fatuous Matthew Syed. The likes of Piers Morgan and other people with no genuine connection to football. Tabloid hacks. Merson, probably.

"City's escape shows that crime does pay", and the like.

They'd all be on their moral high horse, believe me.

But we'll doubtless get punished anyway, so it's all irrelevant.

 

[blue oli]

Aleksander Ceferin on City's ban:

"I didn't speak about case and didn't see it. Let's wait for the decision. Wouldn't be appropriate to comment."

He knows ;)

So not even backing his own organisations decision ?

 

[Cobwebcat]

Aleksander Ceferin on City's ban:

"I didn't speak about case and didn't see it. Let's wait for the decision. Wouldn't be appropriate to comment."

He knows ;)

Sounds like he is distancing himself from the decision.

If UEFA lose this, and maybe even if they don't, it will be like night of the long knives at HQ.

We will find out who really runs UEFA and what sort of organisation it wants to be going forward...if indeed there is anything left of it.

They have invited clubs into decision making bodies with their own interests at heart because they are afraid of a breakaway. They believed they could work with the top clubs, instead they are watching the top clubs take over and ruin them.

UEFA need to get these guys out, restore independence and do their job. The next time they are threatened with a breakaway let them go. What would happen? Not much. The clubs would probably think twice....no domestic football...that would go down well with supporters! Then the players...no World Cup, in fact no representing their country at all.

UEFA should have had the balls to say no to the likes of Liverpool United and Bayern years ago. Now those same clubs have pulled the tiger's tail and UEFA can't believe it. When this is all over UEFA will be in bits and turn to the clubs they were helping and ask for a favour paying the bill. Then they will find out they have been used from start to finish. Invite the mafia in and pay forever.

 

[Cobwebcat]

If indeed it is overturned (and I'm not holding my breath), can you image the torrent of "righteous" indignation from several quarters? Carragher springs to mind. Most rag-biased journos. The fatuous Matthew Syed. The likes of Piers Morgan and other people with no genuine connection to football. Tabloid hacks. Merson, probably.

"City's escape shows that crime does pay", and the like.

They'd all be on their moral high horse, believe me.

But we'll doubtless get punished anyway, so it's all irrelevant.

Normally yes but this time it will be short lived as attention turns to the real perpetrators and the actions brought against them.

 

[jay_mcfc]

If indeed it is overturned (and I'm not holding my breath), can you image the torrent of "righteous" indignation from several quarters? Carragher springs to mind. Most rag-biased journos. The fatuous Matthew Syed. The likes of Piers Morgan and other people with no genuine connection to football. Tabloid hacks. Merson, probably.

"City's escape shows that crime does pay", and the like.

They'd all be on their moral high horse, believe me.

But we'll doubtless get punished anyway, so it's all irrelevant.

This is a big part of why UEFA went in with such a harsh punishment - they can't lose. They were strong and gave us a tough sentence which either 1- was upheld in court or 2- was given a lighter punishment or had it overturned. Even with no.2 the vast majority of the public will still think we're guilty.

 

[hello]

It's the UEFA Congress today in Amsterdam. No sure if this has any significance?

The perfect place for them to smoke weed, get high and self jubilate at their brilliance thus far

 

[Nails]

It's the UEFA Congress today in Amsterdam. No sure if this has any significance?

They're dismantling the FFP bodies?

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Aleksander Ceferin on City's ban:

"I didn't speak about case and didn't see it. Let's wait for the decision. Wouldn't be appropriate to comment."

He knows ;)

Distancing himself straight away....that's good news.

 

[Cobwebcat]

This is a big part of why UEFA went in with such a harsh punishment - they can't lose. They were strong and gave us a tough sentence which either 1- was upheld in court or 2- was given a lighter punishment or had it overturned. Even with no.2 the vast majority of the public will still think we're guilty.

Oh they can lose alright.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I like many others are keen to see the judgement when it comes as it will outline the charges in full and accompanying prosecution evidence and the sequence in which City defend the charges. Wether we seek to overturn the judgement on procedural grounds or totally refute the charges and offer substantive "irrefutable" evidence to counter any alleged malfeasance. I suppose it depends on which is easier to prove.

I'm not sure if the arbitrary proceedings behave like a law court in the way that evidence is presented by the barristers however I assume it is up to the respondent to prove their case. Interestingly are City the respondent in appellant cases and as these are quasi legal proceedings does it operate at a completely different level. I've seen and been party to the British legal appellant procedure both at Crown Court and the High Court in London in matters appealed on "case stated" and "judicial review" but never privvy to these kind or arbitration cases and obviously these are part of the Swiss appellant system. In UK court appeals there is the the initial judgement which is definitive in nature following initial court process yet we don't have that in this case only a judgement from UEFA. Does this judgement outline the UEFAs findings in full consideration of all facts or is it merely findings based on prosecution evidence only?

I'm intrigued to how it works are the any legal eagles who know how this CAS system operates when dealing with a case? Does it set up with a bench and do they listen to prosecution evidence presented until they rest then listen to defence rebuttal and counter evidence or does it work completely differently? It would seem at this point City have not had the opportunity to present any kind of rebuttal evidence or counter evidence against the allegations or have we and chose not to (hence the none co-operative element).

 

[M18CTID]

Distancing himself straight away....that's good news.

Could be. Or maybe he's just doing the honourable thing and keeping his counsel, which is more than can be said for some of the other vermin at that rat-infested organisation!

 

[petrusha]

This is a big part of why UEFA went in with such a harsh punishment - they can't lose. They were strong and gave us a tough sentence which either 1- was upheld in court or 2- was given a lighter punishment or had it overturned. Even with no.2 the vast majority of the public will still think we're guilty.

One thing that's telling about the press coverage of the entire episode is that there's been no consideration given at any stage to the idea that we might have exploited loopholes in the rules and not broken them. This seems to me to be one possible explanation for UEFA and City taking completely different stances over this.

But the media view is that we're a state-owned club that has benefitted from state funding and that's how the court of public opinion sees it, too. There's potentially a significant difference between ADEC funding our Abu Dhabi sponsorships and ADUG footing the bill, because the former is arguably (depending on the interpretation of IAS 24) within the rules and the latter isn't, but most journalists and rival fans I've seen expressing a view seem not to give a toss about the distinction. We'll be seen as guilty and getting off an a technicality if that's what emerges in the end.

 

[Cobwebcat]

One thing that's telling about the press coverage of the entire episode is that there's been no consideration given at any stage to the idea that we might have exploited loopholes in the rules and not broken them. This seems to me to be one possible explanation for UEFA and City taking completely different stances over this.

But the media view is that we're a state-owned club that has benefitted from state funding and that's how the court of public opinion sees it, too. There's potentially a significant difference between ADEC funding our Abu Dhabi sponsorships and ADUG footing the bill, because the former is arguably (depending on the interpretation of IAS 24) within the rules and the latter isn't, but most journalists and rival fans I've seen expressing a view seem not to give a toss about the distinction. We'll be seen as guilty and getting off an a technicality if that's what emerges in the end.

If it stops at CAS yes. Doesn't appear like it's heading that way to me though. Lots to come out yet...

 

[Cobwebcat]

Could be. Or maybe he's just doing the honourable thing and keeping his counsel, which is more than can be said for some of the other vermin at that rat-infested organisation!

If those were his exact words and without context that's distancing himself and keeping his options open.