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.
projectriver said:
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html "The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want.""
The source of the leak now won't save us - not relevant to me.
Click to expand...
Lol and this is why no one should trust anything from Bayern’s mouthpiece, same spin that the UK media use - an utter shit rag that’s not even fit to wipe the shit from my dirty ring.
 
projectriver said:
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html "The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want.""
The source of the leak now won't save us - not relevant to me.
Click to expand...
And (again) if it's part of the contract that we can move dates around to suit ourselves, and Etihad signed off on that, then it's a straightforward answer to the question. Just because some media outlet wanted to sensationalise it and make him sound arrogant doesn't mean we have to accept it as fact. Again, context is everything, I'd have thought given your seeming background you would appreciate that.
 
Murph said:
I'm sure you would agree that the barrister's representing City are not mugs. IF Pearce was called as a witness then they must believe his testimony could be a crucial part of our defence.
Click to expand...

And I’d expect them to anticipate what pressure he’d come under in cross-examination and coach him accordingly to avoid any obvious traps.
 
Centurions said:
And (again) if it's part of the contract that we can move dates around to suit ourselves, and Etihad signed off on that, then it's a straightforward answer to the question. Just because some media outlet wanted to sensationalise it and make him sound arrogant doesn't mean we have to accept it as fact. Again, context is everything, I'd have thought given your seeming background you would appreciate that.
Click to expand...

I fully appreciate the arguments and my views have been recorded from Day 1 of the leaks. It is very unlikely that a truly arms length contract would have such flexibility. Context is important and it may mitigate the damage done by the emails but it is not everything.
 
nmc said:
And I’d expect them to anticipate what pressure he’d come under in cross-examination and coach him accordingly to avoid any obvious traps.
Click to expand...
We've gone from "irrefutable" (presumably documentary) proof to relying on Simon Pearce being coached to give crucial evidence. I do hope you are wrong.
 
I'd have been surprised if Simon Pearce hadn't made a witness statement as to the context of the emails given that be was the person involved in the exchanges.

That being the case, we would have had no choice about whether he was cross-examined or not.
 
Anyway, don't worry. If we lose at CAS at least the Premier League's CEO is not a United fan (as per his Select Committee evidence today)...
 
Murph said:
I'm sure you would agree that the barrister's representing City are not mugs. IF Pearce was called as a witness then they must believe his testimony could be a crucial part of our defence.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the arbiters at CAS don't know him personally, have no idea what a top hole kinda chap he is and may only know him through a few remarks from the emails and they don't sound good. I shudder to think what a barrister could make of comments like "We can do what we like."
 
projectriver said:
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html "The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When Chumillas asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want.""
The source of the leak now won't save us - not relevant to me.
Click to expand...

FYI in Mediapart the Pearce quote was extended to include "the ones that I have real control over are ADTA and Aabar...we can do what we want".
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
FYI in Mediapart the Pearce quote was extended to include "the ones that I have real control over are ADTA and Aabar...we can do what we want".
Click to expand...
Does anyone have the screen grabs of the emails? I am pretty sure they were originally available but I can't find them online now.
 
projectriver said:
Does anyone have the screen grabs of the emails? I am pretty sure they were originally available but I can't find them online now.
Click to expand...

You might have luck searching the der Spiegel journos Twitter. Winterbach.

Hes definitely tweeted the scanned pages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top