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

[Grassland Blue]

Peter Willis. Sent Andy May off for complaining after some 6 fingered Oldhamite had cut Jamie Hoyland (I think?) in half, and big bald Pete decided to play on and on and on. Never was a meat pie in the face more deserved

It's 'Yonner', not Oldhamite, but you could probably get away with Oldhamer..

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Just one other observation looking again at Rubin Kazan http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/5977.pdf

It reminds of an important point. The entering into the 2014 settlement agreement is prima facie confirmation that UEFA consider they are settling a breach for the periods before ie from Rubin "a settlement agreement is concluded as a consequence of the fact that the club has already violated the UEFA CL&FFPR before and is therefore afforded a second chance." Whilst I accept the possibility that City can be found to have breached in seasons after the 2011/12, 2012/13 seasons that led to the 2014 settlement, I don't accept the same breaches for the period before 13/14 can be used again for a second penalty. That makes no sense. This, for me, reinforces that even if the 5 year limitation argument (and the temporal jurisdiction argument - dont ask)) doesn't work only seasons 13/14, 14/15 and 15/16 are in play. Why is this important? Because almost all of the emails in question refer to a period before 2014 leaving 2 key emails - items 6 and 7 from this tranche https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278. I think it could turn on those 2 docs which means it could turn on one line - the £8m vs £67.5m from Etihad. City will argue "forget that email and look at the irrefutable audit and the actual contract" and "in any event if Etihad was related we were entitled to structure this way." UEFA will say, "City have falsified their accounts and told us Etihad was not related." You decide...

We're back to audited accounts versus emails. Presumably City's argument is that there can be no proof that the accounts have been falsified and must be accepted, and UEFA will argue that theemail shows a probability that they were falsified and the auditors deceived? This is very serious if CAS accepts UEFA's argument, though I suspect that to make such a decision they would need and want rather more than the balance of probabilities.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Launched from the main stand? If I remember correctly.

Yeh, when they went off at half time if memory serves.....

 

[M18CTID]

Do you think there is a possibility of a settlement now? If UEFA think they are in danger of losing the case, they may want to reach an accommodation, and vice versa.

As a fan I just want City to exit this process in the Champions League and untouchable as far as the Premier League goes. if we could do that by reaching a settlement with UEFA then I'd do it too but a 2 year ban to some kind of suspended sentence seems almost unbridgeable. i don't think many people would expect it.

I’m not sure UEFA are that arsed about losing. They’ve lost cases at CAS before and don’t appear to give much of a shit if it turns out they got it wrong. Obviously, this is a very high profile case but it’s probably a lot more damaging to us if we lose than it is to UEFA if they lose.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

It's 'Yonner', not Oldhamite, but you could probably get away with Oldhamer..

Depends where you are. In Saddleworth and Calderdale area, it’s usually BIFFO. Big Ignorant F****r From Oldham. I’ve also had Roughyed. I don’t know if that’s a Rugby League Team thing or whether the term predates Rugby Teams taking on American type silly names (Leeds Rhino’s etc). You have to check before getting out of your car in Leeds, for fear of startling a rhino,

 

[chaddblue]

Peter Willis. Sent Andy May off for complaining after some 6 fingered Oldhamite had cut Jamie Hoyland (I think?) in half, and big bald Pete decided to play on and on and on. Never was a meat pie in the face more deserved

A week or two later he sent off Kevin Moran in the cup final. The first ever player to be sent off in an FA Cup Final

My uncle knew somebody that knew peter Willis and apparently he’d been bragging in his local that he was gonna send somebody off

 

[Marvin]

Just one other observation looking again at Rubin Kazan http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/5977.pdf

It reminds of an important point. The entering into the 2014 settlement agreement is prima facie confirmation that UEFA consider they are settling a breach for the periods before ie from Rubin "a settlement agreement is concluded as a consequence of the fact that the club has already violated the UEFA CL&FFPR before and is therefore afforded a second chance." Whilst I accept the possibility that City can be found to have breached in seasons after the 2011/12, 2012/13 seasons that led to the 2014 settlement, I don't accept the same breaches for the period before 13/14 can be used again for a second penalty. That makes no sense. This, for me, reinforces that even if the 5 year limitation argument (and the temporal jurisdiction argument - dont ask)) doesn't work only seasons 13/14, 14/15 and 15/16 are in play. Why is this important? Because almost all of the emails in question refer to a period before 2014 leaving 2 key emails - items 6 and 7 from this tranche https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278. I think it could turn on those 2 docs which means it could turn on one line - the £8m vs £67.5m from Etihad. City will argue "forget that email and look at the irrefutable audit and the actual contract" and "in any event if Etihad was related we were entitled to structure this way." UEFA will say, "City have falsified their accounts and told us Etihad was not related." You decide...

If Etihad were unable to fulfil the sponsorship, why would a bail-out from the UAE state lead to the conclusion that they are related parties? If the UAE state meets the 90% of the sponsorship and wires the money to ADUG, how does that establish that Etihad airlines and City are related parties?

 

[M18CTID]

Christ, this next few weeks is going to be unpleasant waiting for the decision. Especially when you see it potentially boil down to one line.

Only if they can prove the money originated from our owner. And they would need more than the leaked e-mails I reckon, because if City can irrefutably prove that the origin of the funds was from elsewhere then that would surely trump what was in the e-mails.

Of course, it could boil down to that one line IF our owner did put the money in and the club are saying he did it because UEFA had deemed Etihad to be a related party so he’s entitled to do it and therefore we’ve done nothing wrong, but if we’ve taken it this far on the basis of that alone then that’s a huge risk. In any case, the noises coming out of the club are that we haven’t done anything of the sort.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I’m not sure UEFA are that arsed about losing. They’ve lost cases at CAS before and don’t appear to give much of a shit if it turns out they got it wrong. Obviously, this is a very high profile case but it’s probably a lot more damaging to us if we lose than it is to UEFA if they lose.

Yep, I said the other day that this looks like a free swing for uefa. Compared to City they have nothing to lose.

 

[Groke]

Professor Ulrich Haas! Fuck me they couldn't have picked a much more cliched name for the puppet of the evil empire.

 

[dickie davies]

s it could turn on one line - the £8m vs £67.5m from Etihad. City will argue "forget that email and look at the irrefutable audit and the actual contract" and "in any event if Etihad was related we were entitled to structure this way." UEFA will say, "City have falsified their accounts and told us Etihad was not related." You decide...

Were UEFA (PWC) arguing Etihad were related before that e mail was written?

 

[old blue]

The good old meat pie launched at the referee.

Probably get banned for life for that now lol.

My mate was "miffed" with something that Jack Kelsey the old Arsenal goalie did. He threw a pie in his direction and the game was stopped until the growler was removed. According to the Pink or Green it was half a brick. I don't think the pies were that bad, anyway Dave your secret is safe with me.

 

[Akpowell]

Prefer the Tremeloes version

 

[JCB001]

It's 'Yonner', not Oldhamite, but you could probably get away with Oldhamer..

I believe BIFFFO is therecognised term

 

[mike1923]

We're back to audited accounts versus emails. Presumably City's argument is that there can be no proof that the accounts have been falsified and must be accepted, and UEFA will argue that theemail shows a probability that they were falsified and the auditors deceived? This is very serious if CAS accepts UEFA's argument, though I suspect that to make such a decision they would need and want rather more than the balance of probabilities.

big big bollocks from UEFA If they make a claim like that. I imagine it would amount to accusing us of fraud and also call into question the performance of the auditors if they believe they were hoodwinked and didn’t root it out

 

[KS55]

A week or two later he sent off Kevin Moran in the cup final. The first ever player to be sent off in an FA Cup Final

My uncle knew somebody that knew peter Willis and apparently he’d been bragging in his local that he was gonna send somebody off

An absolute classic footy fan story. I knew someone who knew someone who heard someone say ....
Not that I doubt you, mate.

 

[Akpowell]

What's PWC ?

 

[slbsn]

Were UEFA (PWC) arguing Etihad were related before that e mail was written?

yes

 

[BobbyBoy]

Just one other observation looking again at Rubin Kazan http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/5977.pdf

It reminds of an important point. The entering into the 2014 settlement agreement is prima facie confirmation that UEFA consider they are settling a breach for the periods before ie from Rubin "a settlement agreement is concluded as a consequence of the fact that the club has already violated the UEFA CL&FFPR before and is therefore afforded a second chance." Whilst I accept the possibility that City can be found to have breached in seasons after the 2011/12, 2012/13 seasons that led to the 2014 settlement, I don't accept the same breaches for the period before 13/14 can be used again for a second penalty. That makes no sense. This, for me, reinforces that even if the 5 year limitation argument (and the temporal jurisdiction argument - dont ask)) doesn't work only seasons 13/14, 14/15 and 15/16 are in play. Why is this important? Because almost all of the emails in question refer to a period before 2014 leaving 2 key emails - items 6 and 7 from this tranche https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278. I think it could turn on those 2 docs which means it could turn on one line - the £8m vs £67.5m from Etihad. City will argue "forget that email and look at the irrefutable audit and the actual contract" and "in any event if Etihad was related we were entitled to structure this way." UEFA will say, "City have falsified their accounts and told us Etihad was not related." You decide...

The below is taking from a post a few pages back listing UEFA"s options for reopening cases. If UEFA are going with the line I have highlighted then do dates not go out the window?

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

 

[KS55]

Another day of speculation and nervous posts comes to a close.
Headlines:
A legal opinion gives a few blues the collywobbles, but our resident expert says don't worry (but he had a point).
Moss Siders rule ok.
Don't sleep with the popman when your young daughter is around.

This is James Alexander Gordon wishing you all a good night's sleep.
Goodnight.