Zidane and Moomba's FFP chat.

[kreglze]

Yep, typical trash with little credibility. Pretty funny how Burnley are supposedly part of a "cartel".


A much more balanced, realistic article can be found on ESPN:

CAS lifts Man City's UEFA FFP ban, but questions remain

The main takeaway might be that Man City will play in next season's Champions League, but there is plenty more to unpack from Monday's court ruling.

www.espn.com.au

Good read for someone that has no understanding what is going on.

According to that article, seems like some parts to the case didn't have enough evidence, while others were 'time sensitive' and couldn't be pursued

 

[moomba]

Bizarre from that Marcotti article

It is also likely UEFA argued that, given the severity of the allegations and the fact that new evidence was being introduced, the statute of limitations should not apply, and that was the conclusion reached by CFCB's independent adjudicatory chamber.

Bizarre line of reasoning from UEFA if this is true.

If you don't want a statute of limitations to apply, don't put one in your procedural rules.

 

[moomba]

Well that certainly reads like a daily mail article.

Maybe, but he's called FFP right from day 1, and the letter from 8 clubs wanting our ban to stand pending appeal definitely happened (Pep referred to it in his presser yesterday.

 

[moomba]

Good read for someone that has no understanding what is going on.

According to that article, seems like some parts to the case didn't have enough evidence, while others were 'time sensitive' and couldn't be pursued

It will be interesting to see if evidence was heard regarding the time sensitive matters, or if they just said straight out that they wouldn't bother with it.

The charges related to 2012-2016, anything from 2012-2014 would have been outside the time limitation. It was also subject to a settlement agreement between us and UEFA back in 2014. 2015 and 2016 was fair game, but by the looks UEFA couldn't provide evidence to support the charge.

 

[Zidane98]

Good read for someone that has no understanding what is going on.

According to that article, seems like some parts to the case didn't have enough evidence, while others were 'time sensitive' and couldn't be pursued

Fairly balanced I thought. UEFA did proceed with the charges before the 5 year period. CAS seemed to interpret that as the time limit for the investigation to be completed which I do find interesting as the case was lodged within the required timeframe. If thats the case no wonder City deliberately hindered the investigation.

 

[moomba]

Fairly balanced I thought. UEFA did proceed with the charges before the 5 year period. CAS seemed to interpret that as the time limit for the investigation to be completed which I do find interesting as the case was lodged within the required timeframe. If thats the case no wonder City deliberately hindered the investigation.

The charges relating to any breaches between 2012-14 were more than 5 years before the charges were laid. I don't think it's been established that we deliberately hindered the investigation either.

Personally find it far more likely that we didn't want to hand over sensitive financial material to a body that was leaking like a sieve, and had the hand of several of our sporting and commercial rivals up it's arse while it spoke.

 

[Zidane98]

The charges relating to any breaches between 2012-14 were more than 5 years before the charges were laid. I don't think it's been established that we deliberately hindered the investigation either.

Personally find it far more likely that we didn't want to hand over sensitive financial material to a body that was leaking like a sieve, and had the hand of several of our sporting and commercial rivals up it's arse while it spoke.

The settlement agreement was in 2014 for the breaches and it was not honoured. Id like to see the reasons CAS claim for not using this date for the 5 year timeframe.

CAS agreeed that you didn't cooperate with a legitimate investigation, that pretty much confirms you deliberately hindered the investigation. They also dismissed your claims on the leaks as frivolous although this time round it appears yiur side were getting leaked information sbout the investigation before it was announced. Anyone that doesnt cooperate has something to hide, if you have done nothing wrong you turn over all information asked of you and agreed to in the UEFA FFP agreement.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Do you also hope that Newcastle dominate the league for years to come and no other club has a hope of contending for major honors? if not, be careful what you wish for. The FFP rules are in place for a reason.

That reason is for the big clubs like Liverpool to keep their power

 

[moomba]

The settlement agreement was in 2014 for the breaches and it was not honoured.

Who said that the settlement agreement wasn't honoured? UEFA?

The alleged breaches were from 2012-2016, according to UEFA itself, if it was all about 2014 I'm sure the time limitation wouldn't have been an issue in our appeal.

Id like to see the reasons CAS claim for not using this date for the 5 year timeframe.

I'm looking forward to it.

CAS agreeed that you didn't cooperate with a legitimate investigation, that pretty much confirms you deliberately hindered the investigation.

No it doesn't

They also dismissed your claims on the leaks as frivolous although this time round it appears yiur side were getting leaked information sbout the investigation before it was announced.

When did CAS dismiss out claims on leaks as frivolous? According to numerous reports the club didn't hear the decision until Monday morning, so how we leaked it the week before it a new fantasy for you.

Anyone that doesnt cooperate has something to hide, if you have done nothing wrong you turn over all information asked of you and agreed to in the UEFA FFP agreement.

Ha ha. I'd pay another £10m not to cooperate with a bent process driven by rival clubs.

 

[Zidane98]

Happy to pay a 10m fine in order to not abide by rules that other clubs have agreed and complied with. No wonder City has a poor reputation.

CAS said the right place to address any potential leaks was a UEFA tribunal and that City had a right to pursue it. Thats pretty much sayibg your CAS claim was frivolous. The leaks thing is bs.

 

[moomba]

Happy to pay a 10m fine in order to not abide by rules that other clubs have agreed and complied with. No wonder City has a poor reputation.

LOL.

CAS said the right place to address any potential leaks was a UEFA tribunal and that City had a right to pursue it. Thats pretty much sayibg your CAS claim was frivolous. The leaks thing is bs.

This is what they actually said. It's funny that you consistently disregard UEFA leaks, and even make up fantasies about CAS calling our complaints frivolous. But have sooked over Ian Cheeseman since Monday (despite dismissing the leak as nothing significant a few days earlier)

What Man City and UEFA angrily accused each other of in FFP hearing

Manchester City tried to have UEFA's latest Financial Fair Play investigation thrown out by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

But CAS did show some support to City over their concerns about the leaks from UEFA, labelling them "worrisome".

In a 35-page court decision Manfred Nan, president of a three-man panel, said: "The alleged leaking of information by members of the Investigatory Chamber or the UEFA administration about the proceedings against MCFC is worrisome.

"Again, the Panel is mindful not to trespass into the authority of the Adjudicatory Chamber to address MCFC’s procedural complaints in detail. However, it must be noted that MCFC’s complaints as to the leaks do not, on a prima facie basis, appear to be entirely without merit, particularly concerning the First and Second Leak, […], and the Fifth Leak, which refers to an “insider” at UEFA as the source."

 

[chef]

 

[chef]

 

[chef]

 

[moomba]

I agree with Jose, the fine does seem unduly harsh. But the reasons from CAS might reveal more I guess.

 

[Zidane98]

[/QUOTE]

He is right on this one. City were still found guilty by CAS on a pretty serious charge. Financial penalties are of little detriment to an organisation like City with endless cash reserves. Their fans are even happy to pay a fine instead of complying with FFP regulations.

 

[moomba]

I wonder if he has the same doubts about CAS when they ruled against us earlier in the year.

Seems a few have only discovered serious flaws in CAS in the past 48 hours or so.

 

[Zidane98]

I wonder if he has the same doubts about CAS when they ruled against us earlier in the year.

Seems a few have only discovered serious flaws in CAS in the past 48 hours or so.

They didn't rule against you as there was nothing to rule on, their findings stated as such.

 

[moomba]

They didn't rule against you as there was nothing to rule on, their findings stated as such.

?????????.

 

[Zidane98]

?????????.

CAS couldnt rule on your frivolous complaint as internal avenues of complaint within UEFA had not been exhausted for the so called "leaks" and the referral to the AC was not deemed a final decision.

 

[pantskyle]

Maybe, but he's called FFP right from day 1, and the letter from 8 clubs wanting our ban to stand pending appeal definitely happened (Pep referred to it in his presser yesterday.

True or not it just is a really poorly written article. Like a child wrote it.

 

[Zidane98]

True or not it just is a really poorly written article. Like a child wrote it.

Yep. Beware big bad Burnley who are part of an evil cartel. Classic.

 

[moomba]

CAS couldnt rule on your frivolous complaint as internal avenues of complaint within FIFA had not been exhausted for the so called "leaks" and the referral to the AC was not deemed a final decision.

What does FIFA have to do with it?

LOL that you are still using the frivolous line, despite CAS explicitly saying that our complaint was "not without merit".

We appealed against CAS, they ruled the appeal inadmissable. And I can't recall too many people expressing concerns about CAS' integrity then.

 

[Zidane98]

What does FIFA have to do with it?

LOL that you are still using the frivolous line, despite CAS explicitly saying that our complaint was "not without merit".

We appealed against CAS, they ruled the appeal inadmissable. And I can't recall too many people expressing concerns about CAS' integrity then.

UEFA autocorrected to FIFA for some reason. I demand an investigation by CAS!

Fixed.

 

[moomba]

The non cooperation charge is one of the most intriguing that will hopefully be cleared up in a few days. On the face of it you could liken it to being illegally arrested, getting off but then getting jailed for resisting the arrest.

I'm sure CAS have their reasons, and there may well be more to it. It's a pretty significant fine, and obviously something that CAS took seriously. So it will be interesting to see what the justification for it is.

The other thing I'd like (that probably won't happen) is for UEFA to release details of the charge against us.