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.
richards30 said:
that’s what I mean? I assume it’s a massive fuck up in the Arab culture to get it wrong? So what we class as possibly a blag is seriously important in the protocol of the Abu Dhabi royal family?
Click to expand...

Tbh, I personally don't actually know mate (and yes I'm one of those ignorant people I mention), I'm just going by what people who do know have said on here.
 
projectriver said:
There is a protocol. A number of people are HH (His Highness) and a number HE (His Excellency). The board of Mubadala is a case in point. A couple of HHs and a few HEs. HH is definitively not one person.
Click to expand...

As above Projectriver (and fuck knows why I've only just realised your name isn't Projectdriver), I won't pretend to know anything on the subject, just going by what people have said on here mate.
 
ManCityX said:
How important do you feel witness statements would be in this case? If City brought out someone from Etihad to go over how the sponsorship was structured/paid, would this be a big deal or would the judges potentially think ‘well, they would say that’?
Click to expand...
I suspect neither party put up witnesses. I think it was on the documents plus the referred to experts. Allowing a side to cross examine witnesses in such a short hearing feels unlikely with time required for experts as well.
 
richards30 said:
that’s what I mean? I assume it’s a massive fuck up in the Arab culture to get it wrong? So what we class as possibly a blag is seriously important in the protocol of the Abu Dhabi royal family?
Click to expand...


I remain unconvinced. Look at the Mubdala site and they are both referenced as HH.
 
Keith Moon said:
Most likely HH Sheik Mansour, yes, but HH could be anyone of HH Sheikh Zayeds sons, grandsons, great grandsons. So impossible to prove.
Click to expand...

Well yes, the club could lie and say it wasn't referring Sheikh Mansour and leave it to CAS to consider whether on balance they believe City or not. Or we could abandon crap arguments and focus on good ones.
 
Last edited:
Exeter Blue I am here said:
It belongs in the same big book of bollocks as the “smoking gun” and the imminent arrest of members of the Liverpool board, I’m afraid.....
Click to expand...
The one fact that we do know about the Etihad sponsorhip (and about Etihad in general) is that the Executive Council had been covering it and Etihad appears to have been the recipient of substantial state aid. It's there in the Open Skies Case documents.

We don't know for sure who Pearce was referring to when he used 'HH' so it's nonsense to say that it was "clearly" Sheikh Mansour. If it was referring to Sheikh Mansour, rather than MBZ, why not use 'ADUG' instead? They appear to use that in a number of other emails and we must assume that Pearce, as a senior adviser to the Executive Council, would know the correct protocol.

I'd very much doubt that who HH refers to will have been our key line of defence though, or even part of it. As you've been saying all along, if we have a contract with Etihad and can show that the contract has been fulfilled, then there's no case for us to answer. Again, I don't fully agree with that line of reasoning. The source of funds is certainly the core of UEFA's case here, as the Der Spiegel stories demonstrated.

We'll hopefully find out in the next few weeks. Until then, we're all guessing.
 
Last edited:
whp.blue said:
This is a distinct possibility in my view.
Our owners are International Businessmen first and Football men a distant second.
The way they have established the CFG has gone way over the heads of the footballing world.

So when they say they have done nothing wrong and are absolutely innocent I think they are definitely speaking from their Business point of view.
All big Businesses look for loop holes and use that to their advantage I am not sure a Monopoly like uefa really understand this and have struggled to keep up with our owners thinking.
This is why such a blunt tool as FFP has been shown up for what it is as they have tried to use it as a way to curtail City.
FFP has been crudely altered because uefa have never had the Business Acumen to get ahead of our Owners.
This is why I believe we could be found guilty because of uefas obvious desire to stop us and their total lack of "Real World" Business knowledge.
Click to expand...
But CAS are judging us, not Uefa.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
It’s an opinion. The board’s full of them. Grow up
Click to expand...
More of a guess really, very few of us are qualified for a proper opinion. Just best guesses, which personally I can only base on those that seem better qualified than me which as far as I can see is just 2 or 3 posters. That and those at the club who are the only ones that have seen all the evidence and they seem confident enough not to settle, so it’s a wait and see.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The one fact that we do know about the Etihad sponsorhip (and about Etihad in general) is that the Executive Council had been covering it and Etihad appears to have been the recipient of substantial state aid. It's there in the Open Skies Case documents.

We don't know for sure who Pearce was referring to when he used 'HH' so it's nonsense to say that it was "clearly" Sheikh Mansour. If it was referring to Sheikh Mansour, rather than MBZ, why not use 'ADUG' instead? They appear to use that in a number of other emails and we must assume that Pearce, as a senior adviser to the Executive Council, would know the correct protocol.

I'd very much doubt that who HH refers to be our key line of defence though, or even part of it. As you've been saying all along, if we have a contract with Etihad and can show that the contract has been fulfilled, then there's no case for us to answer. Again, I don't agree with that line of reasoning. The source of funds is certainly the core of UEFA's case here, as the Der Spiegel stories demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Most of the slides/emails DO use ADUG for "additional funding" (https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussba...ostrecke-a293d1c1-0001-0002-0000-000000167278). I know you feel differently on the point. But honestly, knowing what you know, do you really think it wasn't Sheikh Mansour? On a balance of probabilities.

I remain of the view that in this context and taking the situation and the documents together it's "clearly" Sheikh Mansour and we'd be being disingenuous and evasive to argue differently.
 
Last edited:
BillyShears said:
I have to say I slightly disagree. I think the executives have a duty of care to the club and the supporters. Whatever they tried to do in 2010-2014, I understand why they did it. However the Football Leaks were incredibly damaging and continue to be. It has allowed the media to characterise the club in a certain light. The only way you can justify that is if you win at CAS.

If they lose then I'd expect lots of blood on the carpet. The damage will be enormous and the ramifications for everyone from squad to the executives will be wide ranging and very negative. This is a watershed moment in the Abu Dhabi ownership, make no mistakes about that. Everyone from Silver Lake to the entire footballing establishment will be looking for a pound of flesh if we're guilty. It really really really doesn't bare thinking about.

Which is why, I'm beginning to think we'll win. You don't take the risk we've just taken by going to CAS, unless you fancy your chances big time.
Click to expand...
Do you think the ADUG statement re CAS for a start of proceedings was indicative of a plan for both outcomes or simply a bold statement of a certain win.?
 
projectriver said:
There is a protocol. A number of people are HH (His Highness) and a number HE (His Excellency). The board of Mubadala is a case in point. A couple of HHs and a few HEs. HH is definitively not one person.
Click to expand...

spartacus.jpg
 
I hope City lose at CAS and have a squad clear out. We have a season of chaos and confusion next year and we see lots of training ground footage of Brian Kidd kicking over cones. Stones and Walker come out as a couple and some footy lads try and tear up the yaya training pitch. Then from the ashes Phil 'the Phoenix' Foden leads a team of academy graduates to the 2022 premier league title after beating a united team managed by Giggs 6-2 and 0-14. Then the following season as Phil lifts the champions league trophy then surprise Phil himself pops out of the trophy and pulls a mask off the Phil who is lifting the trophy and, surprise, its David Silva. Then they all come to my house and we are best friends forever.
 
Stick Together, trust the Owners, they have done everything they can, against a backdrop of deceit. My support is unwavering, regardless of what happens, and I believe the majority of City fans are like me, they support the club through thick and thin, ban or no ban it doesn't matter, we Stick Together, we fight to the end.
 
mrbelfry said:
I hope City lose at CAS and have a squad clear out. We have a season of chaos and confusion next year and we see lots of training ground footage of Brian Kidd kicking over cones. Stones and Walker come out as a couple and some footy lads try and tear up the yaya training pitch. Then from the ashes Phil 'the Phoenix' Foden leads a team of academy graduates to the 2022 premier league title after beating a united team managed by Giggs 6-2 and 0-14. Then the following season as Phil lifts the champions league trophy then surprise Phil himself pops out of the trophy and pulls a mask off the Phil who is lifting the trophy and, surprise, its David Silva. Then they all come to my house and we are best friends forever.
Click to expand...
Made me laugh anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top