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

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I answered before as well. I think it's quite possible we will be neither banned nor completely exonerated, they'll find no proof that we broke the rules but we weren't as cooperative as we could have been.

That's logic. Innocent but not cooperative enough in proving our guilt!

 

[the talisman]

I think so many people clingong onto the word 'worriesome' in CAS's previous rulong is somewhat grasping. It describes the allegations.
Of course the allegations are worrisome. But doesn't really mean they have merit (obviously i think they do, that isnt the point). I think more is made out of that than really benefits us, sadly.

It actually says the alleged leaks are worrisome, (which is not quite the same as saying the allegations are worrisome) and goes on to say City’s complaints about the leaks do not appear to be entirely without merit.

The next paragraph says the panel is “puzzled” by the Chief Investigators rejection of City’s allegations.

That part of the judgement does not read well for UEFA.

 

[BillyShears]

Oh if anyone's interested (apologies @Ric if this isn't the place for this) - the podcast that @projectriver did with me on FFP/CAS is on Soundcloud for everyone to listen to. It's from last summer but it covers a lot of what is being discussed in this thread.

 

[nmc]

Yes, I think evidence of leaks would be a reasonable, if not complete, defence to the charge of non coop.

Combined with an investigation that had a window of what was it 48 hours - so even if we’d delivered a truck of evidence the IC simply did not have time to consider it. The AC whilst it can call for. Ore information is not the forum to gather evidence but consider it. There’s no getting away from the fact that there were flaws in UEFAs process and a proper independent consideration of the facts maybe enough to see us prevail but on top of that I’d hope we have some evidence to fully explain the leaked emails.

 

[nmc]

I'm flattered but Talkshite aren't interested in the truth or expert opinions talking sense so I won't be expecting the call.

Don’t do it - appearing on Talkshite will damage your credibility.

 

[grandsolo]

Does anyone know if we'll hear anything on this before the official decision, which I think is July/August? Will we just be left guessing till then?

 

[hihosilva]

Does anyone know a good hacker who could link us into the video conference.

 

[nmc]

Any white smoke yet?

Yes the zoom monitor has overheated.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Yep, a fantastic post. Maybe City should take a leaf out of the book of all these other clubs and borrow a chunk of money, paying it back on the drip. I’m sure our credit rating is miles better which means we should be able to borrow a shit load more than all the other clubs put together. We’d blow the fucking lot of them out of the water for the best players.

Yes, maybe PB can enlighten us on this - couldn't Sheikh Mansour actually lend us the whole wedge (0% interest, repayable within 180 days of him "walking away"?)as long as we could pay the interest out of annual turnover? That's by far the best way of securing the "financial stability" of a club.

 

[BuryBlue1977]

I woke up this morning aware that City were to face another day in the lunatic world of football. While a team from Salford borrowed another £140 million to increase it's debt by 42% to a cool half a billion so that the Glazers can still take their divi, while Chelsea pile on the debt because their owner can't prove he came by his wealth honestly, while Spurs borrow wildly to increase their already massive debt to pay for a stadium they can't afford and can't even use and Liverpool rake in the sponsorship from their ever so honourable money launderers City have to go to court to prove that seven (or more?) years ago the club only stayed out of debt and paid its way because the owner pretended to be someone else and paid money into the club. He says he didn't and has irrefutable proof but the crime is so serious we have to ignore his evidence. The rules say so. And he shouldn't even be allowed to appeal. Eight clubs of the PL say so. It's only fair play. Otherwise how are all he clubs named above going to compete with City. It's only financial prudence you know. Football has to be protected from reckless spending by owners. Come on UEFA!

That’s exactly what I wanted to say but couldn’t have put it as well as you did. Post of the decade, fantastic summation of a crazy situation

 

[nmc]

the premier league can do nothing unless they open a case after this. and i think the rules are different in the premier league under the FFP

Im sure Gill will get the necessary changes prepared and voted in by Friday

 

[tonea2003]

thought it might be a good time for those of a sqeamish nature a reminder of the clubs stance in all of this

Manchester City is disappointed but not surprised by today’s announcement by the UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber.
The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position.

In December 2018, the UEFA Chief Investigator publicly previewed the outcome and sanction he intended to be delivered to Manchester City, before any investigation had even begun. The subsequent flawed and consistently leaked UEFA process he oversaw has meant that there was little doubt in the result that he would deliver. The Club has formally complained to the UEFA Disciplinary body, a complaint which was validated by a CAS ruling.

Simply put, this is a case initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA. With this prejudicial process now over, the Club will pursue an impartial judgment as quickly as possible and will therefore, in the first instance, commence proceedings with the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Akpowell]

I answered before as well. I think it's quite possible we will be neither banned nor completely exonerated, they'll find no proof that we broke the rules but we weren't as cooperative as we could have been.

People keep saying this but I very much doubt it's true. The little I've heard suggests that a faction within UEFA insisted on a 2-year ban, with no ifs, buts or maybes. It wasn't a case of hitting us with 2 years so we'd accept 1 year. And why would we accept a 1-year ban when we wouldn't even accept just a fine?

I've said all along it's all or nothing, which taking my powers of prediction into account, probably means we'll end up with a one-year ban.

Surely if we accept a one year ban we're admitting guilt

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

A spokesaman for cas has said" an outcome could be announced in july"

Or not.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Possibly the most risible thing about coverage like this is that it comes at time when the United States is on its arse because of a culture of unaccountable lying from people in positions of power.

It staggers me that Panja is such a **** that even though it has been pointed out time and time again to him the difference between the two cases he hasn't bothered to correct himself. He is of course happy to reply to his arse licking colleagues who are rimming him for his hot take.

Shows once again that the New York Times football writing is being driven by a xenophobic agenda against Arab ownership.

Yes the whole tone of Panja's coverage seems to be that PSG and City can be lumped in together because we are both "owned by arabs." It is a type of casual racism. Imagine for example if you connected the Glazers with Roman Abramovich because United and Chelsea were both "Jewish-owned" clubs.
Panja's theme is PSG bribed some UEFA officials and now City will do the same. Never mind the context that our owners and those of PSG are on opposite sides and it's Qatari influence at UEFA that has led the attacks on City. He seems incapable of producing balanced journalism. FFS all we want is an accurate summation of the situation which gives fair coverage to both sides. There are just no nuances in the media coverage.

 

[the talisman]

This is the decision to reject our first appeal to CAS

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

There’s plenty of encouragement in the rejection, particularly on page 31

 

[nmc]

I've already answered this

As I have no knowledge of CAS totally overturning a governing bodies ruling and harshly criticising that governing body, I voted "other" as I expect CAS to kick it back to UEFA

I still think that’s a possibility - the IC stage started again with all the information available. Probably end up being cleared or getting a slap on the wrist at worst. This process might help UEFA too given that the IC and AC would need to put its own house in order.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Oh if anyone's interested (apologies @Ric if this isn't the place for this) - the podcast that @projectriver did with me on FFP/CAS is on Soundcloud for everyone to listen to. It's from last summer but it covers a lot of what is being discussed in this thread.

Thanks, much appreciated.

 

[Coatigan]

People keep saying this but I very much doubt it's true. The little I've heard suggests that a faction within UEFA insisted on a 2-year ban, with no ifs, buts or maybes. It wasn't a case of hitting us with 2 years so we'd accept 1 year. And why would we accept a 1-year ban when we wouldn't even accept just a fine?

I've said all along it's all or nothing, which taking my powers of prediction into account, probably means we'll end up with a one-year ban.

2 years is the standard, as i understand from all orevious cases. Some get it reduced to 1 on appeal based on proportionality of punishment. But once they 'found' us guilty, it was always going to be 2 years.

Agree though, all or nothing now it would seem

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Tbh the news I see makes me think the g14 are going for the whole lot... Qatar wc, Man City, PSG. All thrown in together as dirty cheating Arabs, its the narrative I think they're creating from what I have seen.