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

[slbsn]

Maybe Project would be kind enough to clarify?

We asked for three pieces of evidence to be submitted after a Uefa deadline imposed?

CAS has subsequently ruled they can be used?

Think they were referred to as A93, 94 and 95?

Yes - but its anyone's guess what they were. In any event City would have included key documents in written submissions to CAS for the appeal.

"On 8 August 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties as follows: “The President of the Panel, with the agreement of the co-arbitrators, has decided to admit into the file the new evidence filed by the Appellant on 2 August 2019, namely exhibits A-92, A93 and A94. The reasons of this decision will be communicated by the Panel in the preliminary award on the admissibility of the appeal.”"

 

[slbsn]

Then I think plenty will end up disappointed?

We may win or lose on technicalities, everything after that is whatever confirmation bias others will place upon the verdict.

I couldn't care less if we have sailed close to the wind, these rules have tried to thwart us at every turn.

I'd be disappointed if we were sloppy enough to have been caught with our hands in the cookie jar, but I won't lose any sleep if fans that were previously in our corner suddenly think worse of us.

I don't think the win would be "technicalities" but I think this is how it will be spun. So I agree - expect to be disappointed

 

[Norbert D]

Apparently it could take up to two months for the CAS ruling to be released. I think the Greed League draw is usually the end of June but guess that will be put back as the final standing from the Premier League won’t have been decided. I think the best case scenario is a reduction to a one season ban which won’t hurt us that much.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Yes - but its anyone's guess what they were. In any event City would have included key documents in written submissions to CAS for the appeal.

"On 8 August 2019, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties as follows: “The President of the Panel, with the agreement of the co-arbitrators, has decided to admit into the file the new evidence filed by the Appellant on 2 August 2019, namely exhibits A-92, A93 and A94. The reasons of this decision will be communicated by the Panel in the preliminary award on the admissibility of the appeal.”"

Thanks. I suspected one to be the Etihad transactions.

I know City did not trust certain pieces of evidence being handed over at the time.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Then I think plenty will end up disappointed?

We may win or lose on technicalities, everything after that is whatever confirmation bias others will place upon the verdict.

I couldn't care less if we have sailed close to the wind, these rules have tried to thwart us at every turn.

I'd be disappointed if we were sloppy enough to have been caught with our hands in the cookie jar, but I won't lose any sleep if fans that were previously in our corner suddenly think worse of us.

A win against a corrupt set of bastards and contrived obstacles will be a good outcome - and public perception is unlikely to stop us performing or achieving things .

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I don't think the win would be "technicalities" but I think this is how it will be spun. So I agree - expect to be disappointed

Yes, when I mean technicalities, I just mean Uefa ignoring their own processes in a rush to judgement.

Lord Pannick seems perfectly suited to seeing loose threads which need to be pulled upon .

City live to fight another day and know changes to FFP are coming.

 

[SEAC1986]

Thanks. I suspected one to be the Etihad transactions.

I know City did not trust certain pieces of evidence being handed over at the time.

Quite appropriate for the current climate, and our specific circumstances

 

[Eoiyflem]

Apparently it could take up to two months for the CAS ruling to be released. I think the Greed League draw is usually the end of June but guess that will be put back as the final standing from the Premier League won’t have been decided. I think the best case scenario is a reduction to a one season ban which won’t hurt us that much.

Based on what?

 

[Eoiyflem]

Not a single person here has seen the evidence, or the counter evidence but many are sure of their own conviction that we're either getting the ban upheld, exonerated or a 1 year reduction. If you make a prediction, back it up with something. Otherwise it's a complete guess and a waste of time.

 

[Norbert D]

Not a single person here has seen the evidence, or the counter evidence but many are sure of their own conviction that we're either getting the ban upheld, exonerated or a 1 year reduction. If you make a prediction, back it up with something. Otherwise it's a complete guess and a waste of time.

just like your comment.

 

[chesterbells]

Not a single person here has seen the evidence, or the counter evidence but many are sure of their own conviction that we're either getting the ban upheld, exonerated or a 1 year reduction. If you make a prediction, back it up with something. Otherwise it's a complete guess and a waste of time.

We wouldn’t have much of a thread to read in that case though.

 

[chesterbells]

just like your comment.

Harsh but,

 

[blueyorkie]

I think that is pretty much their claim. But its nonsensical in law and accounting so surely has to fail.

If there was any serious suggestion of malpractice by City in misrepresentation to our auditors, do you think it plausible that someone of Pannick’s status would take the case? Thanks in anticipation

 

[SEAC1986]

If there was any serious suggestion of malpractice by City in misrepresentation to our auditors, do you think it plausible that someone of Pannick’s status would take the case? Thanks in anticipation

With the greatest respect to our resident legal eagles, Pannick will take the most profitable route for himself.

It is , after all , the second oldest profession.

 

[remember arthur mann]

If there was any serious suggestion of malpractice by City in misrepresentation to our auditors, do you think it plausible that someone of Pannick’s status would take the case? Thanks in anticipation

 

[petrusha]

I don't think the win would be "technicalities" but I think this is how it will be spun. So I agree - expect to be disappointed

City have already been found guilty by the media, and as a result in the court of public opinion, of unjustifiably exploiting the club's Abu Dhabi connections to generate levels of sponsorship income that we otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain. No one seems remotely bothered whether that's within the rules or not, even though we may regard this as a crucial issue (I do, anyway).

If the CAS ultimately lifts our CL ban, however it does so (i.e. whether it rules that we shouldn't be punished at all in the case at hand or it rules the current punishment disproportionate and substitutes other sanctions such as a fine or a suspended ban), media outlets will definitely report that en masse as City scraping out of a just punishment through a technicality. This fits the established narrative.

That won't be fair. We've definitely looked to exploit FFP loopholes. But what we've done is no different from the way reputable businesses behave across the globe on a daily basis as they look to comply with regulatory regimes to which they're subject while operating their business to the best effect. There's nothing wrong with that, but unfortunately the British sports press and its readers will parrot ill-considered bollocks about the "spirit of the regulations".

As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't give a fuck what the masses or idiotic sports journalists (illiterate in matters of business) think. Life's too short to worry about the opinions of morons. I want us to avoid a ban. If we do, I'll be happy, however we achieve it. I think a reduced one-year ban is survivable, though damaging. But I'll be bitterly disappointed if we don't obtain some improvement in the situation after going to CAS.

 

[slbsn]

If there was any serious suggestion of malpractice by City in misrepresentation to our auditors, do you think it plausible that someone of Pannick’s status would take the case? Thanks in anticipation

Yes he would take the case

 

[blueyorkie]

Yes he would take the case

A bit mercenary?

 

[slbsn]

A bit mercenary?

Just the way it works.

 

[domalino]

We will not accept anything but complete exoneration.

The owner will see this through right to the very end.

Far too many are counting on an outcome which essentially paints a scene of Khaldoon and Lord Pannick standing at the top of some court steps with a middle finger raised?

I don't think Khadoon or the club cares how and why we win.

We get the hell out of Dodge.

We can never be exonerated in the eyes of those people who refuse to see.

Pragmatism is the order of the day.

I know this is a bit unfair, but crikey what a difference a month makes.

Getting a bit nervous TH?