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

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

We haven't come close to failing FFP since 2014 so what charges could they come up with?

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.

 

[the talisman]

Terrifies me the damage that would be done from a 2 year ban, it was a very calculated punishment

Fuck em. Worst case the ban is upheld, it would put us back, maybe comparable to where we were in say 2010.
Well the last 10 years has been brilliant, so if we have to take a few steps back and go again we’ll still be here.
Anyway, fingers crossed we’ll prevail at CAS and this attack on our club will only strengthen us.

 

[NZBlue]

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.

walking in a sky blue shirt in a built-up area

 

[KS55]

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.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Any 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

 

[SEAC1986]

Edited for accuracy

City have a history of aggressive walking

https://www.mancity.com/news/club/city-dna-kevin-horlock-aggressive-walking-63726532

 

[Gordyola]

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.

City have a vested interest in protecting “The Product” the PL, maybe the feeling was this could inflict damage on it and possible open up other scandals Also, as it happened 5 years ago they weren’t our direct rivals This is why in my view they accepted a private settlement

 

[wilky]

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.

No rubber on your walking stick, bald tyres on your garden roller.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

Actually, Lord Pannick doesn’t get to pick his cases. If he is instructed, he is obliged to take the case whether he fancies his chances or not. That’s one of his professional rules.

What does happen, if he gets instructed in a case he doesn’t fancy, is he gives his client advice to the effect that they are on a loser. (And he charges 20k a day for that, too.) Sometimes even having given that advice his client wants to press on anyway. I can’t see Khaldoon taking this to CAS on the off chance his brief is being over cautious, however.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

What was it we used to sing about ocean Finance?