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.
chaddblue said:
Gotta be Steve Kinsey surely ?
Click to expand...
You're right, the two blond mops, although neither as impressive as Tolmie's, which almost doubled his height.

I enjoyed the mid eighties City as I thought we had hit rock bottom and were on our way back. I may have been guilty of being too optimistic, something I have NEVER repeated where City are involved.
 
DorisBlue said:
You don’t have the right to request that information/evidence. Quite rightly too
Click to expand...

That was the point being made.

Someone (several have actually) suggested that our auditors would be in the firing line.
My thought, which PB agreed with (if I understand right), and matches your comment, is that the auditors would look at the incoming money and sign off which sponsor it came from. Where the sponsor got the money from is out of jurisdiction, and probably interest.

So I think we all have the same opinion on that side.

You also suggested, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the auditors would sign off on what was claimed as FFP-exempt. That makes sense to me, but wasn't something I was commenting on.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
It seems to have been forgotten in the midsts of time, but it is well worth remembering the Der Spiegel articles and how they were written.

Outside of a few hacked documents, it was primarily padded out over five days with nothing more than spiteful words to denigrate the club and its history, laying it on thick when it came to our lack of success over the last few decades.

It spoke as if we had basically appeared in 2008 and offered plenty of superior moralising.

City were right to cite it as a clear attempt to damage the club's name.

For me, however, the narrative from De Spiegel betrayed quite a lot in terms of an agenda being served on behalf of an outside party.

It had a very German-centric influence that wreaked of Bayern undertones.

My other conclusion, based on the current politics, are all roads pointing towards Qatar, certainly in light of the recent Facebook revelations about negative accounts being set up about City in India?

Both seriously have the motive. We know the hacker by name but he had no input into how it was presented?
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention Bayern Munich and Qatar in the same sentence as one of Bayerns shirt sponsors are Qatar Airways.

Coincidence or am I just being a bit thick?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
It seems to have been forgotten in the midsts of time, but it is well worth remembering the Der Spiegel articles and how they were written.

Outside of a few hacked documents, it was primarily padded out over five days with nothing more than spiteful words to denigrate the club and its history, laying it on thick when it came to our lack of success over the last few decades.

It spoke as if we had basically appeared in 2008 and offered plenty of superior moralising.

City were right to cite it as a clear attempt to damage the club's name.

For me, however, the narrative from De Spiegel betrayed quite a lot in terms of an agenda being served on behalf of an outside party.

It had a very German-centric influence that wreaked of Bayern undertones.

My other conclusion, based on the current politics, are all roads pointing towards Qatar, certainly in light of the recent Facebook revelations about negative accounts being set up about City in India?

Both seriously have the motive. We know the hacker by name but he had no input into how it was presented?
Click to expand...

I think you are bang on the money here.
 
Regarding the Der Speigel articles, which highlighted some snippets of our hacked emails. I understand our defence is that the emails were taken out of context.

What I am failing to understand, is why has Der Speigel not dug through the stolen material to add additional information that would put their original leaks into full context?

Someone has access to the full database of stolen info. Could it be that the additional information within those email threads does not incriminate us? Maybe the incriminating emails were selected deliberately to cause maximum damage to us, in the knowledge that they were not the full story.
 
Paladin said:
Regarding the Der Speigel articles, which highlighted some snippets of our hacked emails. I understand our defence is that the emails were taken out of context.

What I am failing to understand, is why has Der Speigel not dug through the stolen material to add additional information that would put their original leaks into full context?

Someone has access to the full database of stolen info. Could it be that the additional information within those email threads does not incriminate us? Maybe the incriminating emails were selected deliberately to cause maximum damage to us, in the knowledge that they were not the full story.
Click to expand...

As @tolmie's hairdoo has already indicated. The Der Spiegel article was not the work of just Pinto and the magazine - somebody else - probably tied to Bayern with a particular axe to grind is behind it - Pinto and Der Spiegel have no grounds for such venom. Just read any quotes by Hoeness or Rummenigge re City and there’s the exact same tone as the Der Spiegel article.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Unless we've fucked up and are guilty the £1m settlement is the biggest fuck up the club has probably ever made.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make any sense. Why would we accept a one million pound settlement for such a criminal act
Akpowell said:
As I say we're a soft touch
Click to expand...
It doesn't make any sense. Why would we accept a one million pound settlement for such a blatant criminal act?
 
BlueT said:
Doesn't make any sense. Why would we accept a one million pound settlement for such a criminal act?
Click to expand...
I'm speculating very wildly here but let's suppose we confronted Liverpool with the evidence and they said "It's a fair cop but we've also got loads of emails that will show you're trying to cheat UEFA over FFP. Wanna do a deal? If so we'll pay you £1m in hush money and we agree not to do anything like this again. We both sign NDA's and nothing is ever said again. If you do, we've still got the emails." We're not really in a position to argue as we haven't actually done a settlement with UEFA at that point so accept the settlement.

Yet the emails get released a few years later anyway and all bets are off as we know where they came from, plus we've got information on other stuff.

Like I say, this is very wild speculation but it kind of makes sense in some ways.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm speculating very wildly here but let's suppose we confronted Liverpool with the evidence and they said "It's a fair cop but we've also got loads of emails that will show you're trying to cheat UEFA over FFP. Wanna do a deal? If so we'll pay you £1m in hush money and we agree not to do anything like this again. We both sign NDA's and nothing is ever said again. If you do, we've still got the emails." We're not really in a position to argue as we haven't actually done a settlement with UEFA at that point so accept the settlement.

Yet the emails get released a few years later anyway and all bets are off as we know where they came from, plus we've got information on other stuff.

Like I say, this is very wild speculation but it kind of makes sense in some ways.
Click to expand...

badgeman.jpg
 
MillionMilesAway said:
That was the point being made.

Someone (several have actually) suggested that our auditors would be in the firing line.
My thought, which PB agreed with (if I understand right), and matches your comment, is that the auditors would look at the incoming money and sign off which sponsor it came from. Where the sponsor got the money from is out of jurisdiction, and probably interest.

So I think we all have the same opinion on that side.

You also suggested, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the auditors would sign off on what was claimed as FFP-exempt. That makes sense to me, but wasn't something I was commenting on.
Click to expand...

Any audit has a scoping document, they may uncover things but the audits findings will be based on the “scope”.

Now talking of scoping documents has just triggered a memory, was it that UEFA didn’t provide a scope for the investigation??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top