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.
scoping document produced after the investigation!
That to me sounds like they went on a fishing expedition, hence why City didn't 'co-operate' as they potentially said give us access to everything including all emails rather than we'll need to see the approval documents for the following. This was done at short notice, City provided a document which apparently wasn't even looked at and it was then passed up the ladder due to time.
 
I don't quite get how a reduction of the ban can be an option. We're either guilty or not right? If we're guilty and CAS agree we'll get the two year ban, and if not, we get cleared. Unless i'm missing something here? I don't think City stand to gain anything by accepting a one year ban. It's all or nothing.

I'm speculating here, but I suppose CAS could agree with UEFA's ruling but deem the punishment over the top. Like if someone got a 5 year prison sentence for a crime normally punished with a £100 fine (I don't know if that could actually happen but anyway..), it may be reduced on an appeal.
 
Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?
I voted other, as we only have the bullish club comments to go off its impossible to say how this will turn out.

Goes without saying what I'd like the happen but none of us even know how many cards are in the deck let alone anything else.

That being said from what we know in the public domain, I would hope we'd be away & free and that the IC will take the brunt of criticism & be thrown under the bus by UEFA either after a hearing or without CAS ever starting a review via a deal with us and in doing so slimy UEFA can keep most of themselves intact and say 'we tried our best' to the G14.
 
Last edited:
I'm speculating here, but I suppose CAS could agree with UEFA's ruling but deem the punishment over the top. Like if someone got a 5 year prison sentence for a crime normally punished with a £100 fine (I don't know if that could actually happen but anyway..), it may be reduced on an appeal.

CAS might take a view on the financial impact of the ban and deem 2 years to be completely OTT, which of course it is. In the normal corporate world what crime would you need to commit to get a fine north of £200m ?
 
Etihad publishes its accounts annually and UEFA have the same access to them and any public debate on them just as you or I have. They are not City's accounts and City have no authority to be aware of or provide unpublished background information on Etihad's affairs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ai...uae-settle-long-running-open-skies-debate?amp

According to this article on the settlement of Open Skies Etihad intended to start publishing accounts but hadn't up that point (2018).

Where Etihad got the cash from may not be City’s auditors concern and will not show in City’s accounts.

But this is the crux of the issue. The emails suggest Etihad were funded by City. So where did Etihad get the cash from?

Surely, it’s in our interests to present Etihad’s audited accounts as evidence that their income has come from legit sources and does not show any payment from ADUG or Sheik Monsour.

However, and I’m sure this has been linked to early on in this thread before, but is this part of UEFAs case?

http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

The allegations made in the article claim Etihad use the exact same "creativity" that City are accused. While the accounts may help City they could potentially open a bag of worms Etihad don't want opened.
 
I don't quite get how a reduction of the ban can be an option. We're either guilty or not right? If we're guilty and CAS agree we'll get the two year ban, and if not, we get cleared. Unless i'm missing something here? I don't think City stand to gain anything by accepting a one year ban. It's all or nothing.

For me this is the way, no surrender. No reduction of sanction, no fine becoming a penalty that's acceptable. Should the CAS find against us then on to the next stage, the courts in Switzerland. And if that judgement goes against us we go again. If this process takes a generation, so be it.
 
CAS might take a view on the financial impact of the ban and deem 2 years to be completely OTT, which of course it is. In the normal corporate world what crime would you need to commit to get a fine north of £200m ?

Money laundering for terrorists and criminals? Standard Chartered (fined $1.5 billion) and Western Union (fined just short of $500 million) have plenty of experience on that score.
 
Yes, when I mean technicalities, I just mean Uefa ignoring their own processes in a rush to judgement.

Lord Pannick seems perfectly suited to seeing loose threads which need to be pulled upon .

City live to fight another day and know changes to FFP are coming.
Do you think this is really just part of the.process, a hurdle to be overcome before other action takes place?
In other words if we are lucky we get 50 percent of our owners objectives out of the CAS result and if we are unlucky for whatever reason we get a big fat zero.

Either way, the objectives will continue to be sought but I don't believe it will change the plan of action whatever the result.

Maybe I miss read it all and we like UEFA are playing poker with their rules and we will meekly accept CAS decision like a chastised puppy dog.
 
CAS might take a view on the financial impact of the ban and deem 2 years to be completely OTT, which of course it is. In the normal corporate world what crime would you need to commit to get a fine north of £200m ?
Probably something like hacking into a competitors database and use that to profit or gain an unfair advantage... No, seriously. In my industry this exact same thing happened, and the fines were in the tens of millions.

On CAS this is my fear - as I understand it CAS will look first at whether uefa were right to charge us. My concern here is that they may approach from the other direction, ie is there anything to show they were wrong,or at least enough to show doubt. This may prevent them overruling the uefa decision to punish us.

Then there is the punishment itself. Completely unprecedented level of punishment and uefa know it, I feel they went with two hoping to make one stick. The financial loss we'd suffer is significant, and can't really be justified even if we did commit the crime.

I just hope and pray that we're cleared on all counts at the first hurdle. I believe Khaldoon and would not want that trust to be shown to have been misplaced by any suggestion of wrongdoing being upheld, or for it to feel like 'the cartel' have won again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.