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

[Coatigan]

The Author is putting his own slant on a case,that in reality he knows fuck all about.

He likely knows as much,if not less than our resident experts.

How does he know what parts of the UEFA Case City Barristers were challenging anyway ?.

If our Case had been open to interpretation in the way he suggests.Then in my opinion we would not have even taken the risk in going to CAS and would have cut a deal with UEFA when we had the chance.No matter how unpalatable the deal was.

I don't think he/she is taking a slant. perhaps being selective, maybe, whether intentionally or through lack of available alternative information.

It doesn't make good reading, and in some ways is consistent with what a few of the media outlets have been rushing to conclude.

Which is, we are not accused of just breaching FFP but deliberately cheating it, UEFA, and by extension, football. And that is a bloody serious accusation. Bloody hope our documents are in order and no link between the emails and the actual submitted accounts can possibly exist. That will be the only thing that can clear us, all technicalities and bluster plays aside.
Again, discussing only the above and what is available in that btw.

 

[Centurions]

In order to do that we would have to quantify losses which is very difficult to do, ask yourself to quantify our losses? Don’t get me wrong I would love to see us walk away with countless millions from the various anti City media corporations & cartel clubs

A class action on behalf of the fans for emotional distress (compensation for which, appears to be unlimited).

 

[blueyorkie]

A class action on behalf of the fans for emotional distress (compensation for which, appears to be unlimited).

Only in America!

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Who's got the best chance of getting off, us or Yasmeen?

Who (guessing a soap opera character)?

 

[patrickblue]

we should welcome clubs that will break the cartel.

I think you'll find there's more than a hint of sarcasm in Fuzzy's comment.

 

[nmc]

Interesting from 2018 Nothing new to most but will answer a few questions for the late comers to the thread
https://sports.inquirer.net/326059/manchester-city-threats-to-uefa-revealed-in-leaked-documents

Cliff the City Lawyer comes over as a bit of a rent a gob I’m afraid - I know these emails and quotes have no context but nevertheless.

 

[dickie davies]

Surely the only issue is who paid the money?

No
Originally we said Etihad was not a related party, UEFA's auditors, PWC, recommended that Etihad should be classed as related

It would now be extremely helpful to our defence if we can win the argument at CAS that ETIHAD is a related party, which would mean it doesn't matter if Sheikh Mansour paid the money

 

[slbsn]

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.

No I don't think even UEFA will allege any of those as a mechanism for getting round limitation.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

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

This is really what I'm trying to find out. UEFA have found us responsible for "serious breaches" and have kept stressing the gravity of the findings, though everything is kept secret. The sanction is hardly a laughing matter either. And yet from what we can see if City have breached the rules it seems to be rather less than serious and it seems unlikely we have. Then there's the question of whether the matter can be reopened at all. The football News article suggested it can in serious cases, one of which is fraud, and I wonder if UEFA claim our accounts are fraudulent. I camnn ot for the life of me see how they can sustain such a claim, since we have statements from the club, its auditors and Etihad to the contrary. I would have thought that an accusation of fraud would have to be dealt with in a criminal court rather than IC and AC and then CAS. I certainly hope a decision that our accounts are probably fraudulent would be of no significance at all!

 

[Jazzman]

This is really what I'm trying to find out. UEFA have found us responsible for "serious breaches" and have kept stressing the gravity of the findings, though everything is kept secret. The sanction is hardly a laughing matter either. And yet from what we can see if City have breached the rules it seems to be rather less than serious and it seems unlikely we have. Then there's the question of whether the matter can be reopened at all. The football News article suggested it can in serious cases, one of which is fraud, and I wonder if UEFA claim our accounts are fraudulent. I camnn ot for the life of me see how they can sustain such a claim, since we have statements from the club, its auditors and Etihad to the contrary. I would have thought that an accusation of fraud would have to be dealt with in a criminal court rather than IC and AC and then CAS. I certainly hope a decision that our accounts are probably fraudulent would be of no significance at all!

If they essentially accuse us of a criminal offense like fraud, and we can prove that this never happened, or rather UEFA cannot prove their accusation, certainly there would be grounds for suing them for damages in a real court? Cue the 50 million lawsuit that is always being made fun of on here.