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.
Marvin said:
As someone else commented there are hawks and doves in European football.

UEFA AC though has to satisfy itself that it can make charges stick so regardless of what LFC, La Liga etc want, they need more than that to shut us down.

The strength of the Athletics statements lead me to believe that they now know what the results of that AC investigation are. I hope I am right and they are right.

Others want City to be exonerated. I find that impossible to believe. UEFA will fudge it to get between the hawks and doves. City will then appeal to CAS. It will go on an on.
Click to expand...
Do you think cas have tried to act as arbitration to both sides and await the outcome?
 
cleavers said:
We deleted the thread because its so far a lot of bollocks, also you claim to work for UEFA, and live in Nyon, but you aren't posting from there are you ? We know exactly where you post from, so please don't be so naive.
Click to expand...

im not disagreeing that he’s a charlatan but I do recall the weekend the rumours started re our takeover and the sources being dismissed as fanciful and untrue - glad they were right. Do UEFA not have an office in Miles Platting?
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
City's appeal has not been "lost" the CAS has ruled it "inadmissible" - that is, City cannot appeal that the procedure followed by the IC was flawed until the AC has reached its verdict. I would be surprised if City's lawyers hadn't foreseen this outcome, so why appeal in the first place? The clue is in the standard caution when an arrest is made - you are warned that you should "not remain silent about something you later rely on in your defence". City were making it clear they are outraged by the procedure followed and will challenge any verdict we do not accept on these grounds and others. If UEFA gives no satisfaction the appeal to CAS will be made and will be admissible.

This does not, most certainly, mean that yesterday's news is wrong. It seems hard to believe the timing of both is coincidental and it could mean that negotiations between City and UEFA have shown that City's perceived threats of tying UEFA up in court for years if necessary are not hot air but grow out of a deeply held sense of injustice. A CL ban or fine may have been ruled out but a verdict and "punishment" (if any) have not been reached. I suspect City's legal team are in close contact with UEFA because we would far prefer a swift exoneration to a long legal battle. I suspect UEFA are furious about any failings in procedure at the IC (how are you today Mr P?).
Click to expand...
I agree that (in my view at least) the timing isn't coincidental.

CAS could have rejected our appeal within minutes of receiving it, yet they sat on it for months. Why? My suspicion is that CAS were expecting a quick decison from UEFA meaning that, whatever the verdict, they could either hear the appeal (if we were found guilty) or drop it (if we weren't). So there was no point in rejecting it out of hand only to have to pick it up again shortly after.

I've also said on here that I believe UEFA were hoping CAS got them off the hook by accepting our appeal and finding that UEFA had abused their own process. That would probably have been their preferred outcome as then they don't have to face a war with us but the mud thrown by them and Der Spiegel still sticks. In essence, we got off on a technicality. So both were waiting for the other to make a move, a bit like 4 cars at a mini-roundabout.

I suspect that both have been talking to each other (which is what Ben Rumsby is probably alluding to) and in order to allow the log-jam to be removed, CAS have made their decision, leaving the field to UEFA. That, to me at least, would explain the tweet from the Athletic last night preparing the ground for UEFA's decision to be announced in due course. One theory I've heard from a source I spoke to is that the sequence of events now allows parties to lobby UEFA. So the likes of those rats Tebas, Parry, Gill et al have been publicly tipped the wink about the potential lack of a ban and have a month to try to stiffen UEFA's spine. Usually knowing the source of a leak indicates the motive for it but it's not clear where last night's news came to The Athletic from.

It could be from City possibly although I doubt that. It could be from UEFA themselves, in order to manage the news or test our reslove to fight this. Or it could be from a party within UEFA with malicious intent, to try to get people lobbying for a harsher punishment, as I said earlier. It will be interesting to see if we were to get fined say €10,000 or some other derisory amount, for a minor technical administrative or accounting breach, if the club grudgingly accept it.

But one thing's pretty much for sure, UEFA have now got to show their hand and we aren't backing down if it's any more serious that that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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.