You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Ardwick Green Blue
Well-Known Member
On the contrary in fact, if we'd lost at CAS, I think more likely than not to fail in the Swiss Court
The CAS verdict is going to be a defining moment in our recent history then..
*shivers
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
Has the panel hearing the case been announced? I guess the CAS rep could be significant.
Alan Brazil, Martin Tyler and Robbie Savage
blueyorkie
Well-Known Member
"David Gill
Board member of Manchester United Football Club
The Football Association
UEFA Executive Committee
FIFA Executive Committee
British football executive, formerly chief executive of Manchester United and a vice-chairman of The Football Association. He served as vice-chairman of the G-14 management committee until the G-14 was disbanded. He sits on the UEFA Executive Committee as of 2013. Gill was elected as a FIFA Vice-President sitting on the FIFA Council in 2015..."
Utterly stinks
BlueMoonz1977
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link Ric, very decent article for once and one that highlights the actual damage that could be caused for ourselves and uefa based on the outcome.
It is coming to crunch time now and along with our fellow blues we are starting to get nervous
I just hope and pray we have our evidence (as we the fans have been informed by the club) and as that article states, we get a clean exoneration of all charges- not on a whim legal loophole
It was interesting to read in that article regarding how it could demolish ffp in it's current form (should we be victorious in the case) because we have heard that uefa are looking at that.
We know that within uefa we have our enemies, what if this case was brought and charged against us so that scenario plays out - we get a full clean not guilty verdict, it destroys ffp in its current format and damages those within uefa that want it to remain intact as it is (the cartel) - leaving uefa to reform it
That's my dream anyway
https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
So that could be two sides with no evidence each going to arbitration with nothing to discuss.https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
Seems they will all be in the Swiss pub by lunchtime on monday.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
So UEFA keeping to the confidentiality rule again I see.https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
Plays By Sense Of Smell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 12,081
That quote in itself perhaps sheds light on much.https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
If someone with knowledge of the inner workings is saying that we have no evidence at all, it could suggest that from the peeception of those in the process, we don't - as our dossier of irrefutable evidence never got to them.
We know this, hence why we are so bullish as when this is revealed at CAS, it will be an open and shut matter to dismiss the whole thing - charges, ban, all.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
What an absurd comment. Surprised to see this garbage in the FT. It undermines the paper to publish such rubbish from an anonymous source. So we have no evidence at all and all the public statements from the club, in particular Soriano, are just lies are they? Why would UEFA cave in if we had "no evidence at all." Whoever wrote this must be a total moron.https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
I've gone best case - but I also put a large bet on us to finish higher than the scum at the end of the season the day after the take over.I've gone worst case, 2 year ban upheld.
Genuinely think we are up against a mafia here that will not stop until they have completely fucked us over.
My wife (who has no idea about the blind passions football can ignite) often observes that I am rational about most things in my life - except CITY - where I always assume the best and the Scum
Thankfully in recent years I have had more reasons to smile
What an absurd comment. Surprised to see this garbage in the FT. It undermines the paper to publish such rubbish from an anonymous source. So we have no evidence at all and all the public statements from the club, in particular Soriano, are just lies are they? Why would UEFA cave in if we had "no evidence at all." Whoever wrote this must be a total moron.
It’s a get the narrative out there early shite piece
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
Looks like they're already setting out the narrative that we're still guilty even if we prevail at CAS. Any victory would be down to UEFA "caving in" rather than us being innocent.
Both sides can play that game, you'd just ban us for retaliating with the appropriate falsehood.
PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
So UEFA keeping to the confidentiality rule again I see.
Perhaps a well timed leak to put the cherry on top of the cake.
I see the article also quotes Nick McGeehan, that ever so reliable source.https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 13,467
- Team supported
- City
Evidence of what?https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e doesn't say much new aside from this nugget which is just a nonsensical quote and should be ignored...
"Meanwhile, a person with knowledge of the governing body’s investigations, commented that “provided Uefa don’t cave in, they should win at CAS . . . City have no evidence at all”."
A very strange statement as it would suggest we are not defending ourselves but instead claiming that something was corrupt.
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
The Marcotti article is a very readable assessment of what is at stake for both City and UEFA but it shows the difficulty of actually discussing this aspect of the affair. Marcotti does not, and probably cannot, tell us what City are supposed to have done wrong, apart from whatever it may be amounts to "serious breaches" of FFP and that FFP is to "limit the net losses a club can accrue over a three year period" and that City did not cooperate with the investigation. This is the position of fans on here; we have a case of unprecedented importance to the future of our club beginning on Monday and we have no clear idea of what the "charges" are!
A decision will be reached, maybe in 3 to 4 weeks, maybe sometime in August - we don't even know when - by three judges or arbitrators or whatever they're called based on a mass of evidence - the nature of which we know absolutely nothing - which as Marcotti argues, the number of those equipped with the legal and accounting knowledge even to decide what is and is not an infraction could sit comfortably in a minivan!
In my bewilderment I ask how City's accounts could have been audited and inspected by UEFA without problem if the breaches are so serious? How did it take the CFCB so long to decide City had such a serious case (whatever it is) to answer and then so long to decide such a draconian punishment was called for? If the case is about sponsorship or any other matter I am still left with the question I have had since the start - what evidence can UEFA have that can possibly nullify the evidence of our accounts?
On other matters I find it interesting that Marcotti thinks FFP is in need of reform and that a City victory would let Ceferin get on with that job and thus be good "for both football and the organisation" (UEFA). This is not a long way from the theories PB and I have been putting forward, theories which have been dismissed this morning as wild speculaton. My opinion is that if FFP is as difficult to understand as Marcotti is suggesting it is far too complicated to be of any use anyway and football needs it swept away completely.
A decision will be reached, maybe in 3 to 4 weeks, maybe sometime in August - we don't even know when - by three judges or arbitrators or whatever they're called based on a mass of evidence - the nature of which we know absolutely nothing - which as Marcotti argues, the number of those equipped with the legal and accounting knowledge even to decide what is and is not an infraction could sit comfortably in a minivan!
In my bewilderment I ask how City's accounts could have been audited and inspected by UEFA without problem if the breaches are so serious? How did it take the CFCB so long to decide City had such a serious case (whatever it is) to answer and then so long to decide such a draconian punishment was called for? If the case is about sponsorship or any other matter I am still left with the question I have had since the start - what evidence can UEFA have that can possibly nullify the evidence of our accounts?
On other matters I find it interesting that Marcotti thinks FFP is in need of reform and that a City victory would let Ceferin get on with that job and thus be good "for both football and the organisation" (UEFA). This is not a long way from the theories PB and I have been putting forward, theories which have been dismissed this morning as wild speculaton. My opinion is that if FFP is as difficult to understand as Marcotti is suggesting it is far too complicated to be of any use anyway and football needs it swept away completely.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
As others have pointed out, if the worst comes to the worst, if you're going to be banned, it's a good time and I'm not sure it would be worth taking it further.
The financial implications of the lockdown have created an unprecedented financial crisis and every club will be losing money. That means FFP regulations will have to be relaxed to allow owner investment otherwise some prominent football clubs face going to the wall. This is an area where we are on particularly strong ground. On the other hand, united and Liverpool need that money just to cover the losses they are currently incurring rather than being able to invest in players and pull further away from us.
Assuming that the Champions League TV rights for the next two years stay the same, which is far from certain given the state of the product, we'd lose out on around £150m. Unlike when the rules were introduced, we can cover that with the sale of one or two players. Not a very palatable thought but, in business terms, the correct response to give us breathing space. Can we do that whilst still challenging for the domestic title ? I believe we can and, if necessary, will. Certainly whilst our rivals are fighting debt fires, our owners will be constructing a new business plan from a position of relative strength.
As for reputational damage. Every single person you hear pontificating knows exactly what FFP was created for and its very creation has tarnished the whole product. The chief architects are shooting themselves in the foot in the belief that football is all about them. It isn't and, in the not too distant future, they'll come to realise that. Our reputation will recover. Prominent clubs have done a lot worse (Liverpool and Juventus I'm looking at you) and recovered and we will too.
Embrace next week's hearing. Whichever way it goes, we'll win out in the end.
The financial implications of the lockdown have created an unprecedented financial crisis and every club will be losing money. That means FFP regulations will have to be relaxed to allow owner investment otherwise some prominent football clubs face going to the wall. This is an area where we are on particularly strong ground. On the other hand, united and Liverpool need that money just to cover the losses they are currently incurring rather than being able to invest in players and pull further away from us.
Assuming that the Champions League TV rights for the next two years stay the same, which is far from certain given the state of the product, we'd lose out on around £150m. Unlike when the rules were introduced, we can cover that with the sale of one or two players. Not a very palatable thought but, in business terms, the correct response to give us breathing space. Can we do that whilst still challenging for the domestic title ? I believe we can and, if necessary, will. Certainly whilst our rivals are fighting debt fires, our owners will be constructing a new business plan from a position of relative strength.
As for reputational damage. Every single person you hear pontificating knows exactly what FFP was created for and its very creation has tarnished the whole product. The chief architects are shooting themselves in the foot in the belief that football is all about them. It isn't and, in the not too distant future, they'll come to realise that. Our reputation will recover. Prominent clubs have done a lot worse (Liverpool and Juventus I'm looking at you) and recovered and we will too.
Embrace next week's hearing. Whichever way it goes, we'll win out in the end.
The Marcotti article is a very readable assessment of what is at stake for both City and UEFA but it shows the difficulty of actually discussing this aspect of the affair. Marcotti does not, and probably cannot, tell us what City are supposed to have done wrong, apart from whatever it may be amounts to "serious breaches" of FFP and that FFP is to "limit the net losses a club can accrue over a three year period" and that City did not cooperate with the investigation. This is the position of fans on here; we have a case of unprecedented importance to the future of our club beginning on Monday and we have no clear idea of what the "charges" are!
A decision will be reached, maybe in 3 to 4 weeks, maybe sometime in August - we don't even know when - by three judges or arbitrators or whatever they're called based on a mass of evidence - the nature of which we know absolutely nothing - which as Marcotti argues, the number of those equipped with the legal and accounting knowledge even to decide what is and is not an infraction could sit comfortably in a minivan!
In my bewilderment I ask how City's accounts could have been audited and inspected by UEFA without problem if the breaches are so serious? How did it take the CFCB so long to decide City had such a serious case (whatever it is) to answer and then so long to decide such a draconian punishment was called for? If the case is about sponsorship or any other matter I am still left with the question I have had since the start - what evidence can UEFA have that can possibly nullify the evidence of our accounts?
On other matters I find it interesting that Marcotti thinks FFP is in need of reform and that a City victory would let Ceferin get on with that job and thus be good "for both football and the organisation" (UEFA). This is not a long way from the theories PB and I have been putting forward, theories which have been dismissed this morning as wild speculaton. My opinion is that if FFP is as difficult to understand as Marcotti is suggesting it is far too complicated to be of any use anyway and football needs it swept away completely.
Very good post. It is a disgrace that there is not even an agreed, communicated picture of what the case is that UEFA found vs the Club. Remember these aren't charges. The club was found in breach. This is a finding, a conclusion, a verdict. Yet the public know nothing but one liners.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.