As has been said many times, it’s not UEFA per se that have it in for us, just the clubs that squeeze their balls. The feeling is that UEFA now are seeing where the future lies now and that’s not with the G14 but with where the money is, I.e. the new money. We’ve seen Ceferin distance himself from the Adjudicatory system and attempt to broker a deal. I’m sure that even if we win we won’t be laying the blame at UEFA’s door and I can see a more harmonious future.
If we signed the settlement agreement on 16/05/2014 then surely the 5 years expires on 15/05/2019. We were charged on 16/05/2019 1 day too late
What charges and on what grounds? We haven't come close to failing FFP since 2014 so what charges could they come up with?When the time comes for CAS to deliver their verdict. When they say we are in the clear (hopefully). I am expecting UEFA to come back again with some more charges of a different kind.
We all know that UEFA have got it in for us. It all goes back to when we turned out a few seconds late after half -time, and got fined more than a team shows finds were singing racist songs to the opposing team
The one thing both Uefa and the Premier League will have to factor in if our ban is upheld, is the potential for future recompense and loss of earnings.
We are certain qualifiers in terms of current league standings, that's before we win it in August ;)
City would move on to the Swiss Courts and there is little doubt that continued litigation comes with added cost to both ourselves and Uefa.
Fag packet calculations for missing out on just next season would be £70m in TV monies, before matchday income and then other commercial stuff is factored.
Add on the £25m fine, and Uefa and the Premier League must need to be extremely mindful of what City would be owed on the back end if we were ultimately found exonerated at a higher court.
Our owners can stand the loss in the interim, but Uefa and United (should they steal the place) would be on the hook for the best part of £100m.
It doesnt add up for me, either they have something on us or we have done a deal on something or someone??
If that's the other way round I see Liverpool sending us to the dogs.
Is it me or have we just rolled over & let Liverpool tickle our belly??
You sir, have far to much time on your hands, twice I’ve read that, and it’s still makes no sense whatsoever, lol
It is a complete mystery and all for a measly 1 million quid.
Well I have to say that was a cracking read written by Stefan Borson. Gives me more confidence going into the CAS hearing and if CAS are impartial they will show what a conniving bunch of crooks run the IC and AC. Come on City.We know from the CAS1 appeal that City asserted all alleged breaches more than five years prior to the communication on 15 May 2019 are time barred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules which expressly prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five years prior.
The key word here is "breach" rather than the date of the settlement agreement in 2014. The breaches at the latest were in the 2012/2013 accounting year.
This view was backed-up by Stefan Borson in this article: https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/ and he also thinks Article 38 of the procedural rules doesn't apply.
Stefan is the house legal expert on here - see his occasional posts under the name projectriver
For part 3, we compiled a report at their request, so they have evidence but declined to use it.
For part 2, authorities showed zero interest as no complaint was made to police or information commissioner.
We haven't come close to failing FFP since 2014 so what charges could they come up with?
Terrifies me the damage that would be done from a 2 year ban, it was a very calculated punishment
Any or a combination of the following would be my guess:
Walking on the cracks in the pavement.
Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.
Looking at them in a funny way.
Smelling of foreign food.
Owning a football club, whilst being an arab; contrary to the Petty Racist Act and G14 regulations 2020.Any or a combination of the following would be my guess:
Walking on the cracks in the pavement.
Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.
Looking at them in a funny way.
Smelling of foreign food.
Edited for accuracyAny or a combination of the following would be my guess:
Agressive walking on the cracks in the pavement.
Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.
Looking at them in a funny way.
Smelling of foreign food.
Edited for accuracy
Part 2. Besides the parties involved most people would prefer tax payers money was not wasted on investigating an offence 5 years ago to solve a spat between two corporate giants, so no issue with that.
Part 3. We messed up royally there. I have no idea why City accepted the payment and now the ‘aggrieved party’ is complicit with initially withholding information from the Premier League. It was as poor a decision as not preventing the IT breach in the first place.
No rubber on your walking stick, bald tyres on your garden roller.Any or a combination of the following would be my guess:
Walking on the cracks in the pavement.
Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.
Looking at them in a funny way.
Smelling of foreign food.
Maybe not, but being able to charge £20 k / day is probably somewhat dependant on his reputation for winning cases Pick too many losing ones and his ego and earnings would take a hit.
The one thing both Uefa and the Premier League will have to factor in if our ban is upheld, is the potential for future recompense and loss of earnings.
Our owners can stand the loss in the interim, but Uefa and United (should they steal the place) would be on the hook for the best part of £100m.