The thing is though we've said we have "irrefutable proof". If that's the case, then I don't see how that can correlate with striking a compromise or a deal.
It's why I really have no idea what's going to happen.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
The thing is though we've said we have "irrefutable proof". If that's the case, then I don't see how that can correlate with striking a compromise or a deal.
It's why I really have no idea what's going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The compromise may be some way of UEFA leaving with credibility if CAS quash the case.
"Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors"
Massive sign of guilt
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors"
Massive sign of guilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On who's behalf?
UEFA leaving with credibility
____________________________________
they can win a thousand cases but that ship sailed years ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors"
Massive sign of guilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On who's behalf?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The team who is banned and crying for an appeal Id have thought.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no. It's past the five year limit to investigate, they'd be on very shaky ground if they did. I think that will be part of our defence against Uefa too tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What 5 year limit?
Both sides have to want it behind closed doors. In this particularly case, there’s glaringly obvious reasons for it too.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no. It's past the five year limit to investigate, they'd be on very shaky ground if they did. I think that will be part of our defence against Uefa too tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What 5 year limit?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statute of limitations, like I said, I think it will form the basis of some of our defence against UEFA too.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe, but if it's found that the sponsorship was being paid partially by the owners rather than by Etihad, even if indirectly funnelled through Etihad in an attempt to disguise it's true origin, doesn't that kind of imply that the headline figure was not commercially achievable, therefore not truly viable, and thus inflated?
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe, but if it's found that the sponsorship was being paid partially by the owners rather than by Etihad, even if indirectly funnelled through Etihad in an attempt to disguise it's true origin, doesn't that kind of imply that the headline figure was not commercially achievable, therefore not truly viable, and thus inflated?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, and UEFA have already ruled on that themselves. All it shows is that Etihad themselves potentially didn’t pay it.
I have my theory as to why that was the case if it did happen, but ultimately if it is true, then I expect the ban to be upheld.
An extract from a much longer piece:
Therefore, we can only rely on the briefest of details in UEFA’s announcement of 14 February 2020 which stated the alleged breaches were the “overstating [of] sponsorship revenue in [City’s] accounts and in the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016.” We also know from CAS and other public documents that UEFA were pursuing the whole investigation pursuant to UEFA’s Procedural Rules governing the UEFA CFCB (and not some other UEFA rule book). That means that, as City argued at CAS, Article 37 of those rules must apply and a 5 year limitation period applies. Therefore, UEFA’s own rules state that, in effect, only breaches that occurred after 15 May 2014 (at the latest) are liable for “prosecution” by UEFA. Any acts, and therefore breaches, before that date are expressly time barred. It is therefore odd and surprising that UEFA refer to 2012 in their announcement at all.
37 comments.... 2 maybe 3 actual answers to a hypothetical game
Just on the op, I know you’re already covered in the position but Sane in your system would have a field day.
I hadn’t read your comment then momo, I promise!
I doubt that City sell anyone to an premier league rival.
Sane looks to be leaving to Bayern, irrespective of whether the ban is upheld or not.
KDB I can see leaving if the ban is upheld. Mainly because of his age. He wants and deserves CL football during his peak years.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
I doubt that City sell anyone to an premier league rival.
Sane looks to be leaving to Bayern, irrespective of whether the ban is upheld or not.
KDB I can see leaving if the ban is upheld. Mainly because of his age. He wants and deserves CL football during his peak years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
KDB has already said as much too. If it is reduced down to one year then he may be ok with it.
If the outcome is that ban is reduced to one year, it will be interesting to see how City react to that.
City maintain their innocence. A reduction of the ban to one year means they are still found guilty.
I get the impression that the outcome will be one or the other. Either the ban is upheld (2 years), or City are cleared (no ban at all).
Dream on.
Why would KDB go to a club who's supporters the whole of England banned from europe.
comment by CaptainDave (U21659)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dream on.
Why would KDB go to a club who's supporters the whole of England banned from europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright Boris.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
I doubt that City sell anyone to an premier league rival.
Sane looks to be leaving to Bayern, irrespective of whether the ban is upheld or not.
KDB I can see leaving if the ban is upheld. Mainly because of his age. He wants and deserves CL football during his peak years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have a few players that would be wanted by most clubs, but they’ll probably be fine holding onto some of the lesser profile players - you’ll still be paying very good wages.
And let’s be honest, we’ve had players that are world class stay not winning the CL already!
See my first comment.
I don’t think it’s just about winning it as much as having the opportunity to do so. It’s not like City haven’t offered that opportunity, even if they’ve failed.
Players like Aguero and De Bruyne might look at it and think it’s a waste to stay given their age and how sought after they’d be, players like Bernardo, Sterling and Mahrez less so.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
See my first comment.
I don’t think it’s just about winning it as much as having the opportunity to do so. It’s not like City haven’t offered that opportunity, even if they’ve failed.
Players like Aguero and De Bruyne might look at it and think it’s a waste to stay given their age and how sought after they’d be, players like Bernardo, Sterling and Mahrez less so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aguero's coming up to the end of his career, I doubt he'd tarnish his legacy by leaving to join a club which 'might' win the CL.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Man City Ban Game
Page 2 of 3
posted on 2/6/20
The thing is though we've said we have "irrefutable proof". If that's the case, then I don't see how that can correlate with striking a compromise or a deal.
It's why I really have no idea what's going to happen.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
The thing is though we've said we have "irrefutable proof". If that's the case, then I don't see how that can correlate with striking a compromise or a deal.
It's why I really have no idea what's going to happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The compromise may be some way of UEFA leaving with credibility if CAS quash the case.
posted on 2/6/20
"Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors"
Massive sign of guilt
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors"
Massive sign of guilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On who's behalf?
posted on 2/6/20
UEFA leaving with credibility
____________________________________
they can win a thousand cases but that ship sailed years ago
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
"Agreeing to have the appeal heard behind closed doors"
Massive sign of guilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On who's behalf?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The team who is banned and crying for an appeal Id have thought.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no. It's past the five year limit to investigate, they'd be on very shaky ground if they did. I think that will be part of our defence against Uefa too tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What 5 year limit?
posted on 2/6/20
Both sides have to want it behind closed doors. In this particularly case, there’s glaringly obvious reasons for it too.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 24 seconds ago
No, I said the accusation was that it didn't come from Etihad, I also said that they have denied it.
I don't know if it's true or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still think it was a longer ban because UEFA know it will be reduced.
Are you worried that if found guilty the PL will look into your FFP compliance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no. It's past the five year limit to investigate, they'd be on very shaky ground if they did. I think that will be part of our defence against Uefa too tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What 5 year limit?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statute of limitations, like I said, I think it will form the basis of some of our defence against UEFA too.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe, but if it's found that the sponsorship was being paid partially by the owners rather than by Etihad, even if indirectly funnelled through Etihad in an attempt to disguise it's true origin, doesn't that kind of imply that the headline figure was not commercially achievable, therefore not truly viable, and thus inflated?
posted on 2/6/20
comment by 19th title coming soon. (U12879)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by White Wall (U1078)
posted 57 minutes ago
If they do get banned for 2 years (personally think it will be reduced to 1 on appeal) where does that leave them in terms of FFP.
If they have been inflating income already where does losing £70 -100m leave them?
Up schit creek?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no accusation of inflating income, the accusation is about where the declared income came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe, but if it's found that the sponsorship was being paid partially by the owners rather than by Etihad, even if indirectly funnelled through Etihad in an attempt to disguise it's true origin, doesn't that kind of imply that the headline figure was not commercially achievable, therefore not truly viable, and thus inflated?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, and UEFA have already ruled on that themselves. All it shows is that Etihad themselves potentially didn’t pay it.
I have my theory as to why that was the case if it did happen, but ultimately if it is true, then I expect the ban to be upheld.
posted on 2/6/20
An extract from a much longer piece:
Therefore, we can only rely on the briefest of details in UEFA’s announcement of 14 February 2020 which stated the alleged breaches were the “overstating [of] sponsorship revenue in [City’s] accounts and in the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016.” We also know from CAS and other public documents that UEFA were pursuing the whole investigation pursuant to UEFA’s Procedural Rules governing the UEFA CFCB (and not some other UEFA rule book). That means that, as City argued at CAS, Article 37 of those rules must apply and a 5 year limitation period applies. Therefore, UEFA’s own rules state that, in effect, only breaches that occurred after 15 May 2014 (at the latest) are liable for “prosecution” by UEFA. Any acts, and therefore breaches, before that date are expressly time barred. It is therefore odd and surprising that UEFA refer to 2012 in their announcement at all.
posted on 2/6/20
37 comments.... 2 maybe 3 actual answers to a hypothetical game
posted on 2/6/20
Just on the op, I know you’re already covered in the position but Sane in your system would have a field day.
posted on 2/6/20
I hadn’t read your comment then momo, I promise!
posted on 2/6/20
I doubt that City sell anyone to an premier league rival.
Sane looks to be leaving to Bayern, irrespective of whether the ban is upheld or not.
KDB I can see leaving if the ban is upheld. Mainly because of his age. He wants and deserves CL football during his peak years.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
I doubt that City sell anyone to an premier league rival.
Sane looks to be leaving to Bayern, irrespective of whether the ban is upheld or not.
KDB I can see leaving if the ban is upheld. Mainly because of his age. He wants and deserves CL football during his peak years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
KDB has already said as much too. If it is reduced down to one year then he may be ok with it.
posted on 2/6/20
If the outcome is that ban is reduced to one year, it will be interesting to see how City react to that.
City maintain their innocence. A reduction of the ban to one year means they are still found guilty.
I get the impression that the outcome will be one or the other. Either the ban is upheld (2 years), or City are cleared (no ban at all).
posted on 2/6/20
Dream on.
Why would KDB go to a club who's supporters the whole of England banned from europe.
posted on 2/6/20
* got
posted on 2/6/20
comment by CaptainDave (U21659)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dream on.
Why would KDB go to a club who's supporters the whole of England banned from europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright Boris.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 hour, 58 minutes ago
I doubt that City sell anyone to an premier league rival.
Sane looks to be leaving to Bayern, irrespective of whether the ban is upheld or not.
KDB I can see leaving if the ban is upheld. Mainly because of his age. He wants and deserves CL football during his peak years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have a few players that would be wanted by most clubs, but they’ll probably be fine holding onto some of the lesser profile players - you’ll still be paying very good wages.
posted on 2/6/20
And let’s be honest, we’ve had players that are world class stay not winning the CL already!
posted on 2/6/20
See my first comment.
I don’t think it’s just about winning it as much as having the opportunity to do so. It’s not like City haven’t offered that opportunity, even if they’ve failed.
Players like Aguero and De Bruyne might look at it and think it’s a waste to stay given their age and how sought after they’d be, players like Bernardo, Sterling and Mahrez less so.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
See my first comment.
I don’t think it’s just about winning it as much as having the opportunity to do so. It’s not like City haven’t offered that opportunity, even if they’ve failed.
Players like Aguero and De Bruyne might look at it and think it’s a waste to stay given their age and how sought after they’d be, players like Bernardo, Sterling and Mahrez less so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aguero's coming up to the end of his career, I doubt he'd tarnish his legacy by leaving to join a club which 'might' win the CL.
Page 2 of 3