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

[manchester blue]

yep, that's the best part of that statement. They backed up few years ago when we've threaten to go too the real court. Looks like they have been pressured by cartel to take the risk, guess all that talk about super league was part f that pressure.

The word 'impartial' also stands out to me.

 

[Marvin]

In this scenario you are describing money laundering. In essence we are using a bank transfer to a sponsor from us to falsely conceal the source of funds for a sponsorship deal. If that’s our defense we are truly buggered.

Nobody on here has a clue what our defense is. What is clear is that we are supremely confident of having this quashed. Our statement in response to the ban has basically accused UEFA of being totally corrupt. No legal team would dream of advising us putting this in writing unless they are 101% certain UEFA are wrong. An interesting time is ahead.

I don't think the conduit of how UAE state funds are used to transfer funds from the state airline is particularly important. It looks and sounds damning but this is what is meant by context. City and Etihad will have a contract specifying the terms of the Etihad deal. If it says £67.5m is due to Man City in respect of X then the financial obligations of a finacially compromised state airline are indeed going to be met by the UAE Executive government. That is not really controversial. Regarding the small UAE sponsors, I don;t think City have ever pretended that these companies were not owned by Sheikh mansour e.g. Aabar so within reason we can within the rules adjust what we sponsor ourselves. There are loads of examples of football clubs self-sponsoring e.g Leicester with King Power, Sports Direct etc.

I totally agree with your reading of City's confidence. We reportedly turned down approaches from Ceferin to agree a small fine.

 

[Marvin]

The Ceferin rumour is very interesting. If the club have any proof of that offer surely it would strengthen their case? UEFA offer a slap on the wrist to save face with the cartel and media but we refuse as we believe we are innocent. UEFA then throw their toys out of the pram and hit us with the ban and fine. So even if we go to CAS and fail, surely the original slap on the wrist should be the punishment as that is what was originally agreed was fair.

UEFA seem to have done somersaults over the course of their AJ review which completely compromises their process. However that relies on the accuracy of news reports. Sam Lee's information was that both UEFA and City believed a ban was highly unlikely.

 

[Nails]

Ask Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or Edward Woodward, and they too will claim irrefutable proof of no wrong doing from their companies either. That’s where it sits for me.

TBF, Zuckerberg eventually took some responsibility for FB's actions.

 

[swinton blue]

They made that agreement because they would have failed been unable to adhere to FFP for years so they colluded together to let Milan off the hook for upcoming years while they don’t participate in Europe because of the ban. Shows the integrity of UEFA.

That's was my earlier point CAS hasn't really overruled an FFP case
And we are hoping they will do for us

 

[Marvin]

The word 'impartial' also stands out to me.

We would say that.

What stood out for me was first instance. i.e. CAS is just the first call and that this will go to the highest court if necessary.

So journalists arguing about point deductions and scrapping titles had better do the basics first and read UEFA's statement and City's statement.

Some jounrnalists (Miguel Delaney in the Independent being one) have allowed their own triumphalism to cloud their judgement. Their end objective is there for all to see but outside of Liverpool and Man Utd I don't think many want to go down this road. It will destroy football's credibility and more importantly they are nowhere near there yet.

The likes of Gill, Parry and Tebas have obvious infuence at UEFA. The process is flawed. (David Conn are you reading? Shame on you for not understanding the obvious.)

 

[meltonblue]

why the fuck would you criticize owners of eventually (probably) cooking the books to beat bent rule? Not trying to beat them would be football equivalent of abiding by apartheid rules in South Africa. We wouldn't play in CL anyway if we respected the ****s of the rules, it was there to stop us in the beginning, you you would never see the success of last few years if we played fine.

Fuck the FFP rules and especially, fuck those that say it's cheating when you shit over bent rules. They can suck our trophies :)

Because if they did then they didn’t just lie to Uefa about it.

I’m fine with not liking the rule, I don’t. Challenge it properly in the first place though. The ends don’t always justify the means and personally I’d give up a few trophies to know that I can trust the owners of our club implicitly and they don’t lie to me.

I still believe I can btw, I’m just not giving anyone a completely free pass regardless of the outcome.

 

[Dubai Blue]

In this scenario you are describing money laundering. In essence we are using a bank transfer to a sponsor from us to falsely conceal the source of funds for a sponsorship deal. If that’s our defense we are truly buggered.

I'm not suggesting that's what our defence will be. I'm suggesting that's what may have happened.

City's task will be to show that X million was due from Aabar, Y million was due from Etisalat, and Z million was due from Etihad, etc. And then to produce records to show that X, Y, and Z million was received from Aabar, Etisalat and Etihad, respectively.

How any of those companies got that money is none of UEFA's business and certainly beyond their jurisdiction.

 

[paulchapo]

UEFA seem to have done somersaults over the course of their AJ review which completely compromises their process. However that relies on the accuracy of news reports. Sam Lee's information was that both UEFA and City believed a ban was highly unlikely.

Yes I kept on reading Sam Lee's reports that a ban was unlikely to happen. Given that he appeared to be ITK I was fairly relaxed until the bombshell dropped. That is why I am worried now as these positive reports often turn out to be false.

 

[bondsman]

Nobody has explained how Gerrard’s slip was the result of FFP breach but now he’s entitled to a medal? Getting more ludicrous by the day