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

[hjohn]

The impression I have got from reports is that they haven't seen it, as they deemed it too late. Hence their opinion that WE are the ones not co-operating with the process.

So we offered it but they didn’t take it
It just surprises me because you think they would have snatched our hand off to get sight of it
Unless accepting it would mean they had to then consider it

 

[old blue]

I am sorry but Buzzer ever getting near the seat of power is a wish that will never be realised. Look at the present incumbents and you will see that they are all yes men and I cannot see buzzer dropping his standards to become one of them. Witness the closing of ranks when he presciently told them what was to come.
Perhaps when the dust settles after their "danse macabre" they might just see the light and start to represent the football world and not the chosen few.

 

[SWP's back]

So why all the talk of a big surprise for them regarding our evidence if they’ve already seen it?

Quote all this talk.

 

[nmc]

It is probable that because they never considered it they then never passed it to the AC for consideration in their judgement. You have to remember the IC were tunning out of time to charge City and if City were entitled to present it it may have gone over the 5 year deadline. So it is my understanding the AC never even saw Citys dossier. Not a bad thing in my view.

That might be right. The AC may have made a judgement wholly based on what the IC sent them and didn’t go looking for further evidence or corroboration.

 

[nmc]

Quote all this talk.

“All this talk” !

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

Sounds to fit what I've heard.
The club stated that the info provided hadn't been considered, I think.
It does sound as though the club had the 5 year deadline in mind when dropping their evidence, which may play against City.

I too wondered if this would be seen negatively. I'm not sure of the timescale between when we were informed of the charge and the 5 year deadline but we are, of course, entitled to spend adequate time collecting the required evidence to defend ourselves. The greater the charged offence, the greater our need. Retrospectively, as 2 years is a huge ban, surely we were entitled to spend significant time in compiling our defence and we can't have been expected to rush things through because UEFA were getting too close to the deadline.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I think until we overturn the decision that is how we will be portrayed because whether we like it or not a judgement has been made on us by UEFA.

The important thing now is to produce this ‘irrefutable’ evidence to CAS and get the decision changed. Neither side has produced anything, to my knowledge, in relation to evidence and with the press not being allowed I would imagine we will find out little, except the judgement.

If UEFA win you can be certain that all details will be leaked to the media within hours. If we win I sincerely hope we do not agree to keep the information under wraps. I think us fans deserve to see everything whatever the outcome. We are the paying customers.

 

[Nooks]

I hate the football authorities more than the Dippers or the Rags (I know, it can be argued that they are one and the same thing). Imagine the parent explaining to his son or daughter why there are ‘fans’ monkey chanting and then the associated club playing it down and receiving almost fuck all punishment? Imagine trying to explain to your young daughter that the very head of FIFA is advocating that female footballers wear tighter shorts to make the game more entertaining? Then there are the back-handers, bribes, self serving rules etc etc. My dream is that our owners tear the whole corrupt house down and that the pigs are pulled away from their troughs and sent to prison. The harm they have done to the game and to society should not be forgotten. Sorry for the rant; feel better now!

 

[ganganvince]

I too wondered if this would be seen negatively. I'm not sure of the timescale between when we were informed of the charge and the 5 year deadline but we are, of course, entitled to spend adequate time collecting the required evidence to defend ourselves. The greater the charged offence, the greater our need. Retrospectively, as 2 years is a huge ban, surely we were entitled to spend significant time in compiling our defence and we can't have been expected to rush things through because UEFA were getting too close to the deadline.

There would be a deadline for submission we were either within that or not simple really

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

That might be right. The AC may have made a judgement wholly based on what the IC sent them and didn’t go looking for further evidence or corroboration.

Due to the limited timescale to get the case considered the IC were under serious pressure to get evidence and as City wanted to confirm it was irrefutable, they will have wanted to ensure the evidence they gave was conclusive. The IC had no option but submit their case on the evidence they had, hence the maximum ban given by the AC, and extra charge of failing to cooperate. The overarching claim to the AC will have been that we failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute the allegations and what evidence they had, and that we did not refute it, meant that we were guilty as charged.

Whether the AC got to see our evidence afterwards is different question, and one that could be possibly explained by the arrival of Ceferin during a couple of our European games.

 

[franksinatra]

If UEFA win you can be certain that all details will be leaked to the media within hours. If we win I sincerely hope we do not agree to keep the information under wraps. I think us fans deserve to see everything whatever the outcome. We are the paying customers.

I thought I had read that we also agreed that the Press/Media should not be in attendance?

Seems the wrong move, if true, if the evidence is irrefutable to strike back as those who have sullied our reputation.

 

[robbie brewer]

not if the evidence at CAS is bound by confidentiality clauses (I have no idea if this is the case). No good if nobody knows about it!

If we introduce evidence at CAS it will not be bound by confidentiality clauses. The idea that it would be is quite frankly beyond stupid

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Sounds to fit what I've heard.
The club stated that the info provided hadn't been considered, I think.
It does sound as though the club had the 5 year deadline in mind when dropping their evidence, which may play against City.

Presumably there is a deadline in the uefa rules for submitting evidence, I doubt we'd be stupid enough to go beyond any deadline.

If we pass on a 200 page dossier 1 day before the 5 year deadline for fresh charges to be brought against us is up, it's not our problem.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I thought I had read that we also agreed that the Press/Media should not be in attendance?

Seems the wrong move, if true, if the evidence is irrefutable to strike back as those who have sullied our reputation.

I think these hearings are always held in private with no obligation for anyone to publicise any detailed evidence. It's not an open court case. Someone on here may know better. Either way the best outcome would be City being cleared and then holding a full disclosure press conference. We need to lance this boil.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Presumably there is a deadline in the uefa rules for submitting evidence, I doubt we'd be stupid enough to go beyond any deadline.

If we pass on a 200 page dossier 1 day before the 5 year deadline for fresh charges to be brought against us is up, it's not our problem.

Agreed, if City have ignored the rules, then there's no hope.

I was thinking whether the club evidence could have been provided earlier than it was, or whether they held off, knowing that the IC were time-limited.

 

[bluemanchester]

There would be a deadline for submission we were either within that or not simple really

If we were not within a deadline UEFA would have leaked that or City may have admitted it. As it is UEFA have not said that so I doubt that is the case, their excuse will be within the ""uncooperative" part of the charge I suspect.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Agreed, if City have ignored the rules, then there's no hope.

I was thinking whether the club evidence could have been provided earlier than it was, or whether they held off, knowing that the IC were time-limited.

Think that would've been very hard seeing as the findings against us were also 11th hour.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Agreed, if City have ignored the rules, then there's no hope.

I was thinking whether the club evidence could have been provided earlier than it was, or whether they held off, knowing that the IC were time-limited.

I would imagine the latter mate.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I would imagine the latter mate.

Yes, I would be unsurprised if the club decided to make the IC's job painful.

@prestonibbo_mcfc - Equally fair comment, I don't remember the timeline offhand

 

[bluemanchester]

I thought I had read that we also agreed that the Press/Media should not be in attendance?

Seems the wrong move, if true, if the evidence is irrefutable to strike back as those who have sullied our reputation.

City are playing the long game so not having the press in attendance may not be a bad thing. If the long game is the case then this CAS hearing is something City have to go through to justify a court hearing. If CAS uphold the ban and fine I believe City will be heading to the European or Swiss courts and if any leaks occur before a court case, like they did with the New York Times and others, before and during IC and AC hearings then I believe the balance tips in Citys favour.