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

[west didsblue]

It's not an "imaginary rule" - it's a real rule about related party sponsorship...

There are several arguements City could use (I'm no legal expert though)

1. Etihad isn't owned by SM (our owner) but is owned by the Abu Dhabi government (not sure if it could still count as "related" though????)
2. The leaked emails mention a "Royal Highness" but not by name, so they either think it's SM (see point 1) or they think it's the acutal ruler of Abu Dhabi (again see point 1)

I think maybe this is the crux of City's defence - sure a wealthy person put some money into Etihad who just happened to pay us the same amount in sponsorship but can they prove WHO it was and how they are directly related to us as a "related party"?

I thought related party meant in the same business ownership structure. City is ultimately owned mostly by ADUG. Etihad isn’t. Mansour wholly owns ADUG and may have an interest in Etihad but that doesn’t make it related. Another example is Juventus, currently owned by the same family that has the biggest stake in their sponsor.

 

[Magicpole]

Come on city....tell them we’ll give them UK fishing rights in exchange for no punishment....that should sort it.

Fuck off. English fishing rights maybe. That's about 8 fish. Maybe six.

 

[lonestay]

I wonder why last Friday for the announcement? There are better dates coming up for shock value and max effect, I wonder if there was anything that was/is happening that forced their arm to make the first strike ?

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

https://apple.news/AcvKf8csaNCKEbm8UNOh3IA

Piece in the Guardian that is well written. Buckle up boys and girls, this is going to get interesting.

Good piece. And one point very telling and we should actually explore

lucrative friendlies or a new competition entered which shows uefa and its corrupt league is not needed

that would be sweet

 

[BillCarlisle]

.

The two statements are extremely consistent and that gives confidence. It really does smack of a great deal of mistrust from start to finish of the process. The club must win this. Biggest match we have had, for the soul of football.

I completely agree. We are going in to bat not just for ourselves but for the great majority of clubs throughout Europe. It's pretty clear that it's mainly fans of the cartel clubs who are taking any joy out of this ban. Maybe they should think again - their time could well be up.

 

[laserblue]

The only missing link for me is why things heated up so easy (slap on wrist to a 2 year ban). I was kind of wondering what had changed. The only thing I can think of is the Messi rumours?

Because City quite rightly refused to accept the slap on the wrist as it meant the club had accepted it was guilty and the collective media/rag/dipper response would have been that the club is a proven cheat who got off lightly but a proven cheat all the same. City's owners have maintained all along that the club is innocent of all charges and has "irrefutable proof" (that UEFA didn't bother to look at) to confirm this. City's position is therefore that it will accept no penalty of any kind no matter how small.

When City rejected the slap on the wrist fine UEFA decided to go full on with a two year CL ban and a huge fine. The fact that they were prepared to offer City a slap on the wrist suggests that they know full well their case against City is flimsy in the extreme. The 180 degree turn is most likely to have been pushed by City's enemies in UEFA and the cartel and we all know who they are.

 

[give it to gordon]

Can see it being changed to a 1 year ban after we appeal and we'll accept that. Really can't see us wanting to drag it on and on by taking UEFA to the courts.

No way should we accept a reduced ban we have to go balls deep and finish this once and for all

 

[warpig]

I've been saying this for years no way will we or any other big name get banned .

UEFA know it's the end of them if we do.

On champs league weeks we play more lucrative friends / tournaments again the best from the far East, usa, central America and throw into that any big name that wants a slice of the pie Celtic, rangers , a.c. Milan, with out UEFA taking their slice , all sponshership money going straight to the club's.

It would be the start of a break away league

It will have to be a big tournament to rake us in £100m a season.

 

[Decepticon]

all those without sin cast the first stone meaning

PS
what about the big 2 from Spain hiding
Barcelona ? real madrid ?

Top 20 clubs by net debt
1. Manchester United - €536m

2. Benfica - €336m

3. Inter Milan - €306m

4. Valencia - €285m

5. QPR - €279m

6. AC Milan - €249m

7. CSKA Moscow - €224m

8. Galatasaray - €222m

9. Juventus - €209m

10. Roma - €208m

11. Sunderland - €208m

12. PSG - €186m

13. Fenerbahçe - €166m

14. Dinamo Moscow - €164m

15. Atlético de Madrid - €164M

16. Liverpool - €163m

17. Olympique Lyonnais - €159m

18. Monaco - €148m

19. Copenhagen - €138m

20. Schalke 04 - €137m

https://en.as.com/en/2017/01/13/football/1484312280_763896.html

Not on the list lol... What a scam, we're dealing with fraudsters here.

 

[BlueRain]

I thought related party meant in the same business ownership structure. City is ultimately owned mostly by ADUG. Etihad isn’t. Mansour wholly owns ADUG and may have an interest in Etihad but that doesn’t make it related. Another example is Juventus, currently owned by the same family that has the biggest stake in their sponsor.

Yeah thats what I am saying... the emails stated a "Royal Highness" paid the money to Etihad but it doesnt name them directly... so there's no actual proof Shiek Mansour paid it and even if there was he doesn't own Etihad although it would be dubious