UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Always makes me laugh when Wenger comes out and says stuff about us. He's hated us ever since the takeover but what he conveniently forgets is that if diamond dealer Danny Fiszman hadn't had pumped in over £50M of his own money into Arsenal in the mid 90's he would of never been able to sign players like Henry,Overmars,Pires(even Bergkamp was bought with that money before Wenger arrived) to help him compete with Utd.

Money HAS always talked in football

But we're the only ones who spend it. Dippers got Allison, Mané, Salah, and The Greatest Dutchman ever to blah blah blah in the PL, for a bag of peanuts and a tangerine. and 'Arry Kickyerbollocks only cost a packet of Wagonwheels.

 

[Whitty1971]

Okay, first timer here, be gentle. I’m a Seasoncard holder of about 30 years, and I’m seriously conflicted about all this UEFA shit. If you will allow me I will tell you why....

One the one hand, screw UEFA, corrupt to the core, protecting the elite cabal, stick it to them through the CAS and beyond that the Swiss Supreme Court if necessary. I wholeheartedly agree with all of that.

But on the other, I don’t support City so I can debate the finer points of Swiss law. For me, in the final reckoning it’s about the balti pies, the bananas, the banter with the guys who sit near me in Colin Bell, Dad taking me and now me taking Dad. The 93:20 and the cups have been amongst the best moments of my life, but they were no sweeter than Dickov 99. I suppose the truth is that I’ve never been entirely comfortable with our club being used as a billboard for Abu Dhabi. Those adverts at half time still seem incongruous to me. Maybe I’m alone in this?

So at this point you find yourself thinking, hang on a minute, are you seriously suggesting that you would go back to Lee and Jamie at the expense of Sergio and David? The answer is obviously no, at least not willingly. What we’ve seen in the last decade has often been sublime, I know that.

BUT - should we be ready to throw (cliche coming but I can’t find better words) the soul of the club away because of all this? At the end of the day, the Sheik’s involvement in our club is a short blip in a long time line. Many of you out there will go back way further than me.

Writing this out has lead me to a vague conclusion. Let’s have the properly independent appeal that the chairman wants. If it really is independent and we win, of course screw UEFA into the ground. But if we lose, we will be left with a grim choice. We either play on within rules that we know are protectionist and corrupt, or we plough our own furrow and constantly be worrying about litigation in Geneva instead of proper concerns like the state of Vinny’s knee and why (even now) it still takes 20 minutes to get a pint in the Fosters Fast Lane.

Answers on a postcard please....

 

[Len Rum]

From what I read it wasn't through ADUG though

I agree mate and that's why I've used the phrase 'may have'.
But I haven't raised this issue just to set a hare running.
Our very own PB has raised it and I believe the leaked e mails point towards this routing of the money.

 

[journolud]

A poorly researched journalist?

Some are being far too kind. He has chosen to lift Prestwich Blue's information and present it as his own, ignoring the relevancy and facts to maintain his ongoing narrative.

He's not a journalist. He's a chiseler.

An absolute disgrace to the profession.

A disgrace to journalism or chiselling? Maybe both

 

[MillisleBlue]

tolmie, you should do a irony piece on the unicredit saga, Italian state gives italian bank billions > Italian bank extends sponsorship to UEFA competitions > UEFA rewrites FFP regulations that suddenly allow Milan club to owner invest. Reeks of corruption and not covered in the press at all, all just per coincidence and nothing to see.

 

[Norbiton]

A poorly researched journalist?

Some are being far too kind. He has chosen to lift Prestwich Blue's information and present it as his own, ignoring the relevancy and facts to maintain his ongoing narrative.

He's not a journalist. He's a chiseler.

An absolute disgrace to the profession.

It is quite interesting that Conn is changing his tune and conceding that City might well not have breached FFP rules, hence his assertion that covering up and misleading those nice guys at UEFA is even worse. It actually looks as though it's Etihad's accounts rather than City's which were being protected while they battled accusations of uncompetitive state sponsorship. Which really isn't any concern of UEFA's

 

[OB1]

Can't agree mate.
If it's routed through J.Bloggs clearing house for financial transactions Ltd. you might have a case.
But it wasn't it came through ADUG and that is our owner and that makes all the difference.
Anyhow hope I'm wrong.

As a qualified and very experienced accountant, I'd say you are entirely wrong: it makes no difference how it was routed (so long as it wasn't illegal) that's just a matter of substance over form. We don't know if UEFA have been idiotic enough to let such a thing confuse them as to the true source of the money and that is an issue because we currently have problem. if the routing of money is a problem it can be solved by providing appropriate evidence.

We are merely speculating though on what has happened; although it does seem to be the case that the EC have been funding Etihad's sponsorship if City and therefore, as an expedient, could quite legitimately have sent the cash via ADUG as a short-cut.

So long as Mansour was not funneling his money through Etihad to City and disguising investment as sponsorship, we have not broken FFP rules as far as I can see.

If it is Mansour's money, we have to go and fight FFP unless we can have UEFA's hacked evidence dismissed as inadmissible.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In order for City to get an injunction against Uefa's decision. City lawyers in my view will have to establish the following:

1. Prima Facie Case: Like you stated above, City lawyers have to show that we have a good case and not a frivolous one with good chance of success when the trial begins.

2. Balance of Convenience/ Incovenience: The party that suffers the most if the injunction is not granted has more chance of getting decision in its favour.

3. Irreparable loss. That if the injunction is not granted and later we win the case, it wont compensate us for our damage to reputation and missing out on a CL campaign if later CAS give findings in our favour.

I believe all 3 of the above limbs to get an injunction do favour us. I am positive about this.

Get an injunction in which court?

 

[nmc]

And we should remind ourselves of the uncharacteristic, bullish statements from the club in all of this - "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". These statements are carefully crafted by solicitors. CAS has to issue a thorough determination addressing all of our arguments. If it is irrefutable, they have to side with us. If it isn't then the club needs to look at personnel change.

You make a very good point. The legal profession are renowned for being cautious. The statements relating to this case are some of the most upbeat I have seen.

 

[domalino]

Get an injunction in which court?

@Cityinmyheart means a suspension of the ban when he says injunction.

One representative from CAS will make a ruling over whether the ban is in place while the appeal goes forwards, or if it's lifted pending the outcome of the appeal.