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.
can uefa increase there punishment if they win the appeal ? i heard somewhere that if you lose the appeal the punishment could increases. the ban is bad enough ? but adding more fines or another year would truly finish me off with football

i know i know ?? and i can under the owners wanting to win the biggest titles in europe and the world club competitions because it brings in the right media and images and prize money / but uefa don't want us around and winning the champions league ? its clear as mud to me and many fans. but the owners keep coming back for more and more season after season and take the punishment handed out by the uefa board and the match officials

will this case if we lose ? brake the camels back and the owners wave the white flag and take the shit and play ball with uefa. take the 2 years ban or a reduced punishment and then build ? it will be a free run on spending without and more punishment or being asked to play the game of uefa FFP rules. city in the next 5 to 10 years will be not be effected by FFP and the growing premier league revenues and cups is enough to keep this club and its fans happy. so how much is european football worth ?? £50million to £100million depending on the groups and winning it.

so a short term ban and then a free run without uefa and its dodgy FFP rules and then city could really build and then look out ? city have been punished for something back in 2013/14 and that's after the punishment was first handed out so city would be daft ever to make the same mistakes again

so lets say we have to miss champions league for a couple of seasons so what ? city would be sunning it up on a trip to our owners home or the USA play some friendly games and make some money that way
 
M18CTID said:
I’ve mentioned this before but I’m not sure many picked up on it. The Conn article stated that in the lead up to the 2014 sanction, City provided UEFA with 12 months worth of bank records from our online account going back to Spring 2013. You also have to think that in the wake of the 2014 settlement agreement - when our accounts were under even greater scrutiny from UEFA - that we would’ve provided them with bank records for perhaps the next couple of years or so. Surely if there were any significant payments from ADUG then they would’ve stood out like a sore thumb and been picked up by UEFA at the time?
Click to expand...

i think the mancini so called pay off. would be easy to find and even asking the man himself for his accounts would be no trouble
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It won't have been a key thread in the CAS appeal in itself, as Stefan says. But it may give us some context, something which was sorely lacking in the emails published in Der Spiegel. It could well be a pointer to who paid the additional money.

My grounds for saying that it doesn't refer to Sheikh Mansour on the balance of probabilities are that:
  • Other emails refer to 'ADUG', so why not in this one if that's what Pearce meant?
  • There's no other emails we've seen where Sheikh Mansour is referred to by name (although that doesn't mean there aren't any). It was ADUG in the ones published, or 'ADUG shareholder'.
  • I even doubt whether Sheikh Mansour has the day-to-day involvement in ADUG that would require him to make that decision.
  • We know Etihad and its sponsorship of City was funded by the Executive Council, which is chaired by MBZ just a couple of years earlier.
  • We know the protocol is that the use of 'His Highness' without any preceding qualification (I.e. when it's clear which member of the royal family it's referring to) appears to be reserved for MBZ. And Pearce would certainly have known that. It would be second nature to him.
Click to expand...
Fair that it's sort of a side point regardless, but just logically, I can't wrap my head around HH with no other qualifier not referring to Mansour. How else would you refer to him in email? Serious question. Just given that Mansour is the "His Highness" that people would refer to most internally it would make a ton of sense if he was simply "HH" and any other "HH" to be referred to as "HH Sheik [name]".

It's also not uncommon in any organization I've worked in for the boss to only be invoked in matters of cash disbursement or something similar. Very plausible to me that this would be the only "day to day" sort of involvement he has.
 
KS55 said:
Yes, Karen , I have. My feeling towards the club will never change.
But if it emerges that Soriano has deceived us fans or has just dropped a huge bollock, then he has to go. Other reforms in the club will be needed and I will expect them pronto.
City is the club I have supported for over 60 years. That will never change. I will forgive a naughty child.
Click to expand...
I agree,soriano and maybe khaldoon would have to go along with several others
 
Tim of the Oak said:
Good for you but in these troubled times an owner finding a dodgy way to put more money into the Club they own might isn’t much more than a misdemeanour IMHO. Yes I might think less of the administration but it won’t affect my love for City. If people want to walk away from supporting the club if we can no longer afford world class players then that’s my choice but I would prefer there to be 30k in the ground getting behind the lads.

I think k the Club’s values seem to have improved from the Swales and Lee eras anyway. Calls by staff to vulnerable fans, paying match day staff in full, full ticket and season card refunds for cancelled games, support of food banks and free sky codes for the games we can’t go to at least matches any cheating / manipulation on FFP we might or might not have done.
Click to expand...
My post said individuals and the owner not the club,we will mostly all be there as we have always been,if we had to start all over again we would still be there

We have been adamant we have done nothing ,the question was if we have exhausted all of the options and still found guilty how would your view of individuals be
 
projectriver said:
We disagree but the key if City pursue this strategy, is that City win. Any other outcome and whether they are actually "innocent" will be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

We cannot disagree about facts we have commented on the case ? To comment anymore would clearly not be productive and in fact would probably be very damaging if not legally impossible.

taking a deal of innocent would also be very very damaging
 
Ric said:
Khaldoon won't be going anywhere. Not even sure Soriano would tbh.
Click to expand...
The question was if we exhaust all options and we are still guilty,when players/sponsers leave and the media and other clubs can legitimately call us cheats then someone high up is going to have to take responsibility
 
karen7 said:
The question was if we exhaust all options and we are still guilty,when players/sponsers leave and the media and other clubs can legitimately call us cheats then someone high up is going to have to take responsibility
Click to expand...

Whatever anyone calls us, the real "cheats" in this affair are UEFA and the G14 and everyone, in their heart of hearts, knows this. The worst thing we could do is start calling out our own just because people call us names.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
But my point was that Soriano was not and could not have been the architect of this scheme. And I have no expectations that he will fall on his sword if we fail to have the ban overturned.
Click to expand...
Not the architect, but as CEO he is responsible.
Whether he goes if we lose may depend on what CAS say in the ruling.
 
Newman Noggs said:
Whatever anyone calls us, the real "cheats" in this affair are UEFA and the G14 and everyone, in their heart of hearts, knows this. The worst thing we could do is start calling out our own just because people call us names.
Click to expand...
Look we have sworn to the players/sponsors and all the staff that we are innocent,if we never get an innocent verdict then someone has to take responsibilty ,ithat is how it works,it is not about being called names,in their heart of hearts they won't give a shit,UEFA is corrupt,we all know that

Anyway I was just posing the question,if anyone chooses to support or want heads to roll that is for them,there is no right or wrong answer
 
karen7 said:
Look we have sworn to the players/sponsors and all the staff that we are innocent,if we never get an innocent verdict then someone has to take responsibilty ,ithat is how it works,it is not about being called names,in their heart of hearts they won't give a shit,UEFA is corrupt,we all know that

Anyway I was just posing the question,if anyone chooses to support or want heads to roll that is for them,there is no right or wrong answer
Click to expand...
Yes. Promising the players, staff and fans and getting it wrong, how can you stay thereafter? None of them would trust you again.
 
karen7 said:
Soriano broke the habit of a lifetime and spoke to us here directly,he is either convinced of our innocent or a good bluffer
Click to expand...
I think he is convinced. However, some of the commercial deals he has done suggest he is a good bluffer too!
 
karen7 said:
My post said individuals and the owner not the club,we will mostly all be there as we have always been,if we had to start all over again we would still be there

We have been adamant we have done nothing ,the question was if we have exhausted all of the options and still found guilty how would your view of individuals be
Click to expand...

I don’t think my view would change much Karen. If we’ve done the crime, we do the time but it’s hardly major offence in the bigger picture.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
All royals will be referred to as 'His Highness'. No one is questioning that. But when there's a lot of 'His Highnesses' you have to be able to tell which one someone is referring to. So it's 'His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan' and if you were sending an email to someone referring to a conversation you'd had with him, it'd probably go something like "I spoke to HH Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed about the matter we discussed. His Highness agreed that we could proceed as planned." So you've clarified who 'His Highness' is in the first sentence and don't need to use his full name again.

However if the email said "Please note that I spoke to HH Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed about the matter we discussed. He said he couldn't make this decision so would have to get approval from His Highness to proceed" then that would be referring to Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. Or if the email said "Please note that I spoke to His Highness about the matter we discussed and he's happy for us to proceed as planned" then in the absence of any other clarification as to who 'His Highness' was, it would very likely be MBZ.

Who'd have thought when were traipsing through the back alleys around Maine Road, trying to avoid the dog shit and laughing at Peter Swales' comb-over and Cuban heels, that one day we'd become experts in royal protocol in Abu Dhabi.
Click to expand...

Weighing it up carefully i think, taking all into consideration, you may probably be right!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top