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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
cleavers said:
It's got nothing to do with them now, CAS are totally independent of UEFA.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know but won’t the lawyers/judges at CAS will be of a similar calibre to the AC ones? If 5 of them at the AC think we are in the wrong then I don’t hold much hope tbh, especially if the AC had seen our “irrefutable evidence” before passing judgement.

City say they ignored the mountain of evidence they gave them but does that mean they looked at it and came to the conclusion it isn’t refutable or they didn’t look at it all.

If the AC did look at it and decide we’re still in the wrong then we’re fucked. Like I said on the face of it they all appear to be highly qualified and respected in their fields and I can’t see the CAS judges coming to a different verdict if you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:
cityzen81 said:
In that case I’m even less convinced we will get the result we are hoping for.

On the face of it, the AC members appear to all be highly respected lawyers and judges. As bent as UEFA are is it possible the AC are actually impartial as they claim?

It’s one thing to have bent fuckers like Gill, Parry and Lerteme etc, but I find it hard to imagine all these respected lawyers and judges could be swayed to make decisions that go against the evidence in front of them?
Click to expand...
CAS have overturned UEFA decisions in the past (notably Milan) and been critical of the Adjudicatory Chamber so there is precedent there.
 
cityzen81 said:
In that case I’m even less convinced we will get the result we are hoping for.

On the face of it, the AC members appear to all be highly respected lawyers and judges. As bent as UEFA are is it possible the AC are actually impartial as they claim?

It’s one thing to have bent fuckers like Gill, Parry and Lerteme etc, but I find it hard to imagine all these respected lawyers and judges could be swayed to make decisions that go against the evidence in front of them?
Click to expand...

We don't know what evidence was passed from the IC to the AC though, and the head of the IC has previous for leaving the AC out of the loop.
 
Akpowell said:
Or, he said I'm not taking the case it could harm my reputation
Click to expand...
A couple of days ago, the Financial Times confirmed that David Pannick is representing us. Unless someone has been informed by a proper source that he's not on our team, then there's no point in discussing it.
 
I find it strange that people have such extreme reactions to the fact that lawyers represent different clients, seemingly on different sides of things, on a case by case basis.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
It's only a 3 day hearing, not sure anyone could explain it in such a short time.
Click to expand...
well UEFA must have a line of reasoning. You don't have to trial FFP you have to assess UEFA's argument.

If it's that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal we already know. thanks to PB and David Conn, that it's highly unlikely he did. It jut doesn't make sense that a private individual would stand in for a failing state airline which you would expect to be underwritten by its national government. I can't see what else is serious enough to warrant a 2 year ban as the the other UAE sponsorships are minor.
 
If you want a clear opinion that all lawyers and experts agree on, you'll be disappointed. All these matters are 50 shades of grey. Art, not science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top