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

[jaiguruKun]

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.

There's no evidence we didn't assassinate JFK, plan the September 11th the attacks or genetically engineer the coronavirus so we must be guilty of all those too.

 

[nmc]

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”."

That is almost certainly a Rick Parry quote.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

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.

If we do prevail at CAS, they can think or believe what they like, for me.
Plus, if we do, and this FFP shit gets scrapped. or watered down, so that clubs
can attract investment and spend it how they like, I hope we blow the whole shower of them out
of the water. After all these years, it's still hard to comprehend how such a scandalous rule
that allows for debt, but penalises investment ever came into force, no business on earth
operates like this.

 

[KS55]

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.

Where a process such as this is conducted behind closed doors, we should suspect that it is being manipulated to the authority's advantage. Justice should be seen to be done.

 

[petrusha]

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.

I'm pretty sure that it's an old quote the FT included in a piece when the ban was imposed. I remember seeing it before. One point to note is that the CAS proceedings are a de novo consideration of the case, so if UEFA demanded evidence of a specific nature or in a particular form from City and we wanted to provide different evidence, that might have been construed by the AC as not having evidence of our innocence and not cooperating with the UEFA investigation. However, we can assert any such evidence there may be in our appeal to the CAS. Speculation, of course, but also an illustration that the UEFA source's apparent confidence just might be misplaced.

Ever since the AC handed down its verdict, I've considered that comments from UEFA sources such as the one the FT has cited today constitute an attempt to build, in advance of the CAS proceedings, a narrative to push the idea that City are guilty and if we prevail, we will have done so merely through exploiting a technicality. I saw the Tony Evans piece the other day in very much a similar light.

I did, on Twitter yesterday, comment on Evans's allegation that UEFA's crucial evidence comes from materials supplied by MCFC. I noted that, should UEFA's charges against City be proved before the neutral CAS tribunal, the club's audited accounts are falsified and it was interesting that MCFC should have provided UEFA with evidence showing that senior officers at MCFC have undertaken actions that constitute a serious criminal offence potentially punishable by several years' imprisonment*. Evans studiously offered no response, though he must have seen my tweet as he replied to others in the same thread.

* - I'm led, by persons with more knowledge in this area than I have, to believe that a prosecution of MCFC directors for false accounting is highly unlikely as it wouldn't be viewed as being in the public interest. Nonetheless, the manipulation of our income in order for MCFC to avoid a CL ban and thus benefit from large sums of CL revenue to the detriment of other clubs who were denied participation as a result of our dishonesty entails actions constituting a pretty exact fit for the body of the offence contemplated by section 17 of the Theft Act 1968.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

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”."

‘Cave in’ is an interesting phrase,
To my mind, it clearly implies that City are using threatening and/or bullying tactics, and since we apparently have ‘no evidence at all’ this will explain why and how we may win this appeal.

 

[journolud]

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.

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

Am with you there but are you absolutely sure you’re entirely rational on all other matters? ;-)

 

[deano ou812]

Hmmm,who would of thought it couple of days before the CAS hearing and certain media start shit stirring again..

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I see the article also quotes Nick McGeehan, that ever so reliable source.

It was a really lazy article with quotes from anonymous sources and the the usual fake sportswashing narrative. It's depressing that even prestigious organisations like the FT can't be bothered to do more than a cut-and-paste job on what they themselves called "a landmark case" for sport.
The anonymous quote deriding City's evidence was similar in tone to that used on Friday by Tony Evans. So it looks like Rick Parry (a man with close knowledge of the investigation process) is now the go-to anonymous rent-a-quote for a lot of the media pack. That tells you everything.

 

[slbsn]

* - I'm led, by persons with more knowledge in this area than I have, to believe that a prosecution of MCFC directors for false accounting is highly unlikely as it wouldn't be viewed as being in the public interest. Nonetheless, the manipulation of our income in order for MCFC to avoid a CL ban and thus benefit from large sums of CL revenue to the detriment of other clubs who were denied participation as a result of our dishonesty entails actions constituting a pretty exact fit for the body of the offence contemplated by section 17 of the Theft Act 1968.

Whilst its possible that the SFO would conclude that it was not in the public interest, if the FRC (say) concluded City's accounts were false and prepared negligently or worse, the idea that the SFO wouldn't pursue City's directors because of public interest seems fanciful to me. A high profile situation of a PL club would be absolutely in the public interest to pursue - in fact its hard to imagine a situation more in the public interest. In any event, concluding a matter was not in the public interest to pursue could take a very long time - many years in fact. Many years of it hanging over the individuals and the club (ie the company) itself (the company can also be prosecuted as you will know).

I'm not suggesting this is how it pans out, but much much stranger things have happened. This situation still has plenty of potential to catch fire.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That FT piece is absolutely laughable, it's even beyond puff.

Attempting to set the scene for next week, it hangs the entire article on who is representing both sides on the legal fronts of which, we already knew the names on the City side.

Any decent sub editor would have been on the phone to the writers highlighting a very clear contradiction.

They have quoted a supposed informed Uefa source saying City have no evidence.

How the fuck would Uefa know that already when it hasn't even been presented at CAS!!

If anything, it's quite a lazy City bingo card, ticking off the usual stereotypes, interspersed with a rent-a-quote Daniel Geey and the oxygen thief from whatever shitty favela he now occupies.

I see it hedges its bets though, already setting the scene that City will only have got off because Uefa caved in, therefore reinforcing the narrative that we are still guilty.

 

[SilverFox2]

That FT piece is absolutely laughable, it's even beyond puff.

Attempting to set the scene for next week, it hangs the entire article on who is representing both sides on the legal fronts of which, we already knew the names on the City side.

Any decent sub editor would have been on the phone to the writers highlighting a very clear contradiction.

They have quoted a supposed informed Uefa source saying City have no evidence.

How the fuck would Uefa know that already when it hasn't even been presented at CAS!!

If anything, it's quite a lazy City bingo card, ticking off the usual stereotypes, interspersed with a rent-a-quote Daniel Geey and the oxygen thief from whatever shitty favela he now occupies.

I see it hedges its bets though, already setting the scene that City will only have got off because Uefa caved in, therefore reinforcing the narrative that we are still guilty.

Does the phrase "cave in" refer to finding a technicality?
If so does the evidence then have no bearing on the case so that we get a result and they can claim our lasting guilt?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Whilst its possible that the SFO would conclude that it was not in the public interest, if the FRC (say) concluded City's accounts were false and prepared negligently or worse, the idea that the SFO wouldn't pursue City's directors because of public interest seems fanciful to me. A high profile situation of a PL club would be absolutely in the public interest to pursue - in fact its hard to imagine a situation more in the public interest. In any event, concluding a matter was not in the public interest to pursue could take a very long time - many years in fact. Many years of it hanging over the individuals and the club (ie the company) itself (the company can also be prosecuted as you will know).

I'm not suggesting this is how it pans out, but much much stranger things have happened. This situation still has plenty of potential to catch fire.

You make a good point. The one thing that usually spurs the Serious Fraud Office into action is political pressure and media publicity. The "public interest" argument can always be twisted any way the authorities want to. That said I do think the SFO would be crazy to take on any case in the murky world of football.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Whilst its possible that the SFO would conclude that it was not in the public interest, if the FRC (say) concluded City's accounts were false and prepared negligently or worse, the idea that the SFO wouldn't pursue City's directors because of public interest seems fanciful to me. A high profile situation of a PL club would be absolutely in the public interest to pursue - in fact its hard to imagine a situation more in the public interest. In any event, concluding a matter was not in the public interest to pursue could take a very long time - many years in fact. Many years of it hanging over the individuals and the club (ie the company) itself (the company can also be prosecuted as you will know).

I'm not suggesting this is how it pans out, but much much stranger things have happened. This situation still has plenty of potential to catch fire.

I’m guessing the reason it wouldn’t be in the public interest is because the tax man hasn’t been cheated out of any money. He’s gained, if anything.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I’m guessing the reason it wouldn’t be in the public interest is because the tax man hasn’t been cheated out of any money. He’s gained, if anything.

You believe that we don't have a 'secret' bank account in the Cayman Islands to reduce the tax bill? Why not? Everyone else has and nobody says anything.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

This is why I voted 'other'. I think we'll be found innocent but it will be reported as guilty but for a technicality. Very much 'got off' rather than acquitted. Too many sports writers have set their stalls out on our guilt for it to be otherwise.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Genuinely think the two year ban will be upheld, despite the bravado. Anything less than that will be a big bonus for me.

Anything less and we would still be facing Premier League sanctions and all that entails.

You really think the other 19 clubs would sit on their hands if we got a one year ban instead of two?

Guilty would be guilty, regardless of a reduced sentence.

People need to understand the gravity of this case, it is all or nothing.

City would be sent into the wilderness for years by a guilty verdict, putting an official stamp on deligitimising every trophy we have won.

That would certainly be in the interim, as we got to the highest courts in the land.

The damage would already been done though.

 

[Centurions]

I'm pretty sure that it's an old quote the FT included in a piece when the ban was imposed. I remember seeing it before...

Yep, back on 18th of February.

https://www.ft.com/content/c8e25054-519a-11ea-8841-482eed0038b1

That's just lazy journalism.

 

[dickie davies]

Whilst its possible that the SFO would conclude that it was not in the public interest, if the FRC (say) concluded City's accounts were false and prepared negligently or worse, the idea that the SFO wouldn't pursue City's directors because of public interest seems fanciful to me. A high profile situation of a PL club would be absolutely in the public interest to pursue - in fact its hard to imagine a situation more in the public interest. In any event, concluding a matter was not in the public interest to pursue could take a very long time - many years in fact. Many years of it hanging over the individuals and the club (ie the company) itself (the company can also be prosecuted as you will know).

I'm not suggesting this is how it pans out, but much much stranger things have happened. This situation still has plenty of potential to catch fire.

It doesn't seem to be in the public I interest that one PL club has hacked into another one's computer systems and the punishment for the theft of information is potentially five years in prison

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/hacking-of-computers/

 

[Tb1981]

That FT piece is absolutely laughable, it's even beyond puff.

Attempting to set the scene for next week, it hangs the entire article on who is representing both sides on the legal fronts of which, we already knew the names on the City side.

Any decent sub editor would have been on the phone to the writers highlighting a very clear contradiction.

They have quoted a supposed informed Uefa source saying City have no evidence.

How the fuck would Uefa know that already when it hasn't even been presented at CAS!!

If anything, it's quite a lazy City bingo card, ticking off the usual stereotypes, interspersed with a rent-a-quote Daniel Geey and the oxygen thief from whatever shitty favela he now occupies.

I see it hedges its bets though, already setting the scene that City will only have got off because Uefa caved in, therefore reinforcing the narrative that we are still guilty.

No evidence then what would they need to cave in for?