It’s possible we have actually made reference to this during the hearing because we’ve got a two year ban partly due to it being our 2nd sanction. We could show CAS that the 1st sanction shouldn’t have even happened either. I doubt it would have made up a big part of our case at all but it may have been worth documenting.
This, in my opinion, is an fair way to think about the current ffp (CAS) situation but to me it is not what guides my thinking. For me, it is about the principle of the honesty of the club‘s top people. I totally believe them when they say that the club has done nothing wrong and that if the facts (and only the facts) are used to determine the CAS outcome we will be totally exonerated. If the CAS decision does not totally absolve us from any wrong doing, I expect the club to take it to the highest legal court. If we do not, then the principle of the club’s honesty will have been broken AND once broken can never again be mended.It's interesting how people feel about a possible ban. I know it would damage the club. But I also know it would be wrong and therefore a ban has absolutely no bearing on how I feel about my/our club. Those that dislike us will continue to do so regardless. Those with half a brain or more will have seen thru the charade of ffp and any faux punishment regardless. So for me personally the cas determination has no impact. Although I of course want and expect total exoneration.
It’s possible we have actually made reference to this during the hearing because we’ve got a two year ban partly due to it being our 2nd sanction. We could show CAS that the 1st sanction shouldn’t have even happened either. I doubt it would have made up a big part of our case at all but it may have been worth documenting.
Also reminds me of when we definitely weren't going to fail FFP in 2014...
We're optimistic about everything as a forum, sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
Pep dropping qualifying for the CL in again.
Possibly we also should be able to reopen historical agreements that we made under duress.?When you look at the detail the whole thing really does stink.
We were stitched up like a kipper, whether we had missed FFP by hundreds of millions is immaterial given the initial formula they sent would have seen us fail but avoid sanction.
They moved the goal posts. That is the top and bottom of it.
This whole current charade is because they wanted to revisit this time period based on a few misconstrued emails.
We should have challenged in 2014 the same way we have challenged this time. We took a pinch and gave them a level of trust we felt would be reciprocated.
I don’t see any other logical way of looking at it other than the G14 and parts of UEFA being out to stop us.
It really is as simple as that.
Makes me feel old. I was there in the scoreboard end that game. It was a tad tetchy outside afterwards
In a court I don't think you can claim that you shouldn't have been punished for something that you admitted to (which accepting the original punishment in effect did). No idea whether that would apply to CAS though.It’s possible we have actually made reference to this during the hearing because we’ve got a two year ban partly due to it being our 2nd sanction. We could show CAS that the 1st sanction shouldn’t have even happened either. I doubt it would have made up a big part of our case at all but it may have been worth documenting.
The rags sent us down? I had no idea that ever happened
Personally, I doubt we'd have raised this point save to say that the settlement closed a dispute on both sides. IMO, our issue remains that if CAS endorses UEFA's case, it effectively says the club concealed and deceived. In that case, I just can't see how it doesn't also endorse 2 years.Be interesting to hear what the Legal Beagles view on that is mate, as I see it there is a direct correlation and bearing, and, if as stated many times the case is being heard 'De Novo', then why shouldn't it.
Is there any correlation with say tax matters where accountants find ways round the letter of the law legally and loopholes are closed then by the Revenue?Personally, I doubt we'd have raised this point save to say that the settlement closed a dispute on both sides. IMO, our issue remains that if CAS endorses UEFA's case, it effectively says the club concealed and deceived. In that case, I just can't see how it doesn't also endorse 2 years.
FWIW the settlement agreement expressly stated we made no admission in respect of the breachesIn a court I don't think you can claim that you shouldn't have been punished for something that you admitted to (which accepting the original punishment in effect did). No idea whether that would apply to CAS though.
Be interesting to hear what the Legal Beagles view on that is mate, as I see it there is a direct correlation and bearing, and, if as stated many times the case is being heard 'De Novo', then why shouldn't it.
Not reallyIs there any correlation with say tax matters where accountants find ways round the letter of the law legally and loopholes are closed then by the Revenue?
I get that principle but if the same method of reporting was to be applied to all clubs and not just City then they too should be in the dock with us. Roll out the tumbrils.
Not illegal but HMRC can still come after you years later with intrestSilverFox2. In regards to the question that you posed. If you try and evade paying your income tax that is illegal. However if you try to avoid paying for income tax that is o.k.thanks
That's why you don't have to declare your ISA interest on your tax return.
UEFA want to move the goalposts once again. This is just like the police charging you with a crime and being punished for it. Then they are waiting for you outside Strageway's prison for you coming out. Then promptly features you and charge you for the same crime.
I thought UEFA were charging us with distorting revenue and non-cooperation, and that CAS had already raised concerns about the conduct of UEFA's investigation which appeared to City fans as being a public trial played out in conjunction with media smear.Personally, I doubt we'd have raised this point save to say that the settlement closed a dispute on both sides. IMO, our issue remains that if CAS endorses UEFA's case, it effectively says the club concealed and deceived. In that case, I just can't see how it doesn't also endorse 2 years.