UEFA FFP investigation - Other PL clubs appeal to CAS to prevent City playing in Europe (p 2581)

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

  1. SidJames

    SidJames

    Joined:
    10 Nov 2019
    Messages:
    456
    Team supported:
    City
    To the contrary.

    Their Rag/Scouse sycophants in MSM are insinuating UEFA have in their possession a comprehensive cache of emails that contain Bank accounts,sort codes,names,dates,times,invoices etc.

    If this really is true, then they have withheld vital information from Manchester City FC. And have not given Manchester City FC the opportunity to view what they have in their possession and explain it.
     
    John Wayne and give it to gordon like this.
  2. BosnianBlue

    BosnianBlue

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2019
    Messages:
    3,620
    Team supported:
    City
    we didn't have a choice but to abide by it, just as people discriminated in other ways of life, don't. I know we tried to screw ffp, we couldn't have make it at that time, we were too weak, but as long as they can't prove anything and I hope we have cards and loopholes to win it, I don't give a fuck about us not abiding by it.
     
  3. ManCityX

    ManCityX

    Joined:
    26 May 2008
    Messages:
    7,789
    Location:
    Wonderland
    Let the courts decide if the rules were broken or not. UEFA are an organisation which clearly can’t be trusted. You have no idea of the club’s evidence so stop presuming.

    You’re trying too hard to sound unbiased but coming across as naive because you yourself have no idea what the full story is. None of us do.
     
  4. City_Sean

    City_Sean

    Joined:
    24 Oct 2011
    Messages:
    11,179
    Location:
    Watching it, Drinking it in
    Of course I don't know the full story. Nobody on this forum does. I'm a City fan through and through but I think its naive to peddle this narrative that we're totally innocent.
     
    Craig likes this.
  5. bobbyowenquiff

    bobbyowenquiff

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2007
    Messages:
    3,162
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Unless they obtained them quite recently which would explain why the story changed from "City not facing a ban" and "UEFA want a deal" to all-out war in the space of three weeks.
     
  6. BosnianBlue

    BosnianBlue

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2019
    Messages:
    3,620
    Team supported:
    City
    I'm sure all those thinking we should have follow this shit rule, because something, are driving by the rules whenever they sit in the car. And that's even stupid comparing, as we should drive by rule as it's good and fair for everyone. FFP is not,
     
    SidJames likes this.
  7. John Wayne

    John Wayne

    Joined:
    9 Mar 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Are you going to answer my question?
     
    SilvaisSkyBlue likes this.
  8. cjn

    cjn

    Joined:
    31 May 2017
    Messages:
    2,784
    Location:
    NYC
    I agree! The "rules" such that they are were pretty specifically designed to fuck with us. But we didn't challenge them in court at the time and then said we were abiding by them, then maybe didn't. If you accept the rules you don't get to say they're bullshit when you get caught breaking them.
     
    Craig likes this.
  9. mayo31

    mayo31

    Joined:
    8 Sep 2011
    Messages:
    4,975
    Location:
    Middleton
    You have been asked twice to clarify what City are guilty of but you refuse to give your view or any facts

    Please enlighten us all
     
  10. siathers

    siathers

    Joined:
    14 Jun 2011
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    Exile in N10
    So having read this thread, listened to 93:20 etc etc, it seems there are a lot of layers to City's position that I have been trying to get straight in my head and wanted to put down is some kind of order. I think they are as follows but would welcome the thoughts of those better qualified than me:

    1 UEFA leaked during a confidential process - however CAS have looked at this already and said they very probably did but City haven't proven they were damaged by it
    2 The process was fundamentally flawed: scoping document produced after case had begun, case progressed without having read City's submission etc etc - again think we'd have to prove this damaged us?
    3 We agreed a settlement covering the relevant period and you cannot now go back and reopen it - would obviously depend on the exact wording of the settlement agreement which none of us have seen
    4 Your own 5 year rule means you can't reopen the case as it was opened 5 years after the settlement agreement but more than 5 after the year of the alleged offence - like Stefan on the 93:20 podcast says this seems so obvious you can't believe UEFA would have messed it up?
    5 The evidence was hacked and is inadmissible - not sure this applies to UEFA processes and CAS as they are not courts?
    6 The evidence is partial and here is the full email chain which shows there was no offence anyway - possible of course but we don't know what we or UEFA have here as evidence. The emails may have evidenced what was considered but not what actually happened?
    7 The evidence is partial and actually the funds did not flow from our owner but from elsewhere in AD so there was no offence. This has the whole issue around what HH refers to in AD which others have already commented on.
    8 The evidence is partial and the accountants of City, Etihad and indeed UEFA have signed off everything was above board so the source of funds for Etihad cannot be proven to be a problem
    9 PB's point from earlier that the rules would need to be interpreted in light of current UEFA practice rather than what was in place at the time and so we would not have breached the current interpretation of FFP
    10 The way other clubs have been treated for similar offences is fundamentally different
    11 If this all fails, then off to a real Swiss court that FFP itself if illegal

    Have I missed anything?
     

Share This Page