Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million

Whoever that guy was deserves a raise. All my going on and joking aside, how does one refute those. Guess smarter men than us mere internet folk. UEFA really are inept though.

City had David Pannick QC arguing for them at CAS. He's widely regarded as the best there is (as the UK government found out to their cost last September, when Pannick successfully argued at the Supreme Court that Borris Johnson had given unlawful advice to the Queen regarding the prorogation of Parliament).
 
City had David Pannick QC arguing for them at CAS. He's widely regarded as the best there is (as the UK government found out to their cost last September, when Pannick successfully argued at the Supreme Court that Johnson had given unlawful advise to the Queen regarding the prorogation of Parliament).

I guess the solution to every problem in life, is throw money at it. If only I was rich.
 
This may be a stupid question but why can’t UEFA just kick City out of the CL permanently? I mean if it’s their competition then they make the rules and can decide who takes part and who doesn’t, no?
 
If City and their fans hate UEFA so much why are they so desperate to be in their flagship tournament? Shouldn’t they be boycotting it anyway?
 
If City and their fans hate UEFA so much why are they so desperate to be in their flagship tournament? Shouldn’t they be boycotting it anyway?

What the fans and the club want are very different, fans wanted to win this case because of the doors it opened up (mainly the potential trapdoor right out of the premier league) had we lost.
Also I think we can all agree no one wants Stevie G getting a PL winners medal!
 
UEFA announce Cuneyt Cakir will be officiating both legs of Man City’s round of 16 Champions League fixtures against Real Madrid.
 
What email?



If you need me to summarise:

To Simon Pearce, the representative of the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi.

We need to show that money we are attributing to partnership income is separate from our equity funding.


I know it is more complicated for Mohamed Al Mazrouei — Undersecretary of the Crown Prince Court of Abu Dhabi — to split our funding up into separate payments from different entities, but we need to do so to comply with regulation.

Sincerely, Graham Wallace, Chief Financial Officer Manchester City


Oh look, apparently City did refute much of UEFA's claims after all. Not only were they time-barred, they were incorrect in their interpretations. As I said, I can't wait for the full report.

Nah I can read the email myself
 
Honestly if I had to guess and its purely a guess, they cut a fecking shady deal with us in 13/14 and it was forgotten about (on of my major issues with current City), the leaks came and they tried really hard to cover their own arses by hanging us out.

And herein lies the dilemma for the modern football supporter - you love your club and its history, but maybe not the owners ('the business').

It's a bit like flying on an airline, you enjoy the service from the crew, but equally know the management ('the business') will sh!t on you and cancel a flight at the last minute, with no conscience, if it suits them.

I'm no City lover, but do have empathy with their supporters, who are passionate about the club, not the business.

Similar sh!t could happen to most PL teams (in a broader context than just UEFA), there but for the grace of God......
 
Whoever that guy was deserves a raise. All my going on and joking aside, how does one refute those. Guess smarter men than us mere internet folk. UEFA really are inept though.

It was probably very easy to refute. I'm sure if we hacked the emails of any large business we'd read some eye-raising things that, when actually put into context - as City will have done at CAS - becomes much more mundane.
 


If you need me to summarise:

To Simon Pearce, the representative of the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi.

We need to show that money we are attributing to partnership income is separate from our equity funding.


I know it is more complicated for Mohamed Al Mazrouei — Undersecretary of the Crown Prince Court of Abu Dhabi — to split our funding up into separate payments from different entities, but we need to do so to comply with regulation.

Sincerely, Graham Wallace, Chief Financial Officer Manchester City




Nah I can read the email myself

'but, but, but that was 8 years ago, so we are innocent' :lol: :wenger:
 
There's several reasons justifying statute of limitations, it's been discussed by lawyers forever, the main reasons being the fact that defendents can loose evidence to disprove the claim over time, that it shows the lack of diligence from the plaintiff, and that litigation of old cases can have consequences that aren't proportionate with the original offense. That's a basic legal rule, you can't brush it off when it suits you even if it seems unfair.

Right but it's not entirely clear where this 5 year statute of limitations is coming from in this case, let alone that 5 years is a very low level, for something that is assessed over multi-year periods.
 
For what it's worth, I admire @padr81 and @BobbyManc for sticking around and responding to reply after reply, trying to defend their arguments. I won't get into those arguments again, just stating that it would have been easier to lie low and pop up later. They didn't hide, to their credit.

I also think Man City are corrupt as feck, and got away on a technicality because their oil money lawyers were better than UEFA's inept folks. They are not guilty by law, but at least we all know the ethics of what happened.

But hey, money talks. And if you have dirty, oily money, put it into football right now and watch it come out clean on the other side.
 
UEFA must of known City would appeal, therefore you would of thought they would of made sure their case was watertight before banning City.

This was UEFA 's chance to punish City and send a strong message to the likes of PSG that you can't do what you want and they've blown it big time.

City have been reigning in the spending these last couple of seasons briefing the press that they can't compete, afford it etc will be interesting to see whether they stick with that or know think you know what, we can now do whatever we like spend as much as we want.

I haven't liked the way football has been going for years with transfers ridiculous broadcasting rights deals, dodgy owners and state backed clubs.

I really don't know what happens next.
 
Yeahn the real question is : why didn't UEFA act sooner and why didn't they manage to find strong evidence of what they alleged. I mean, of course we're on a Man Utd forum so you expect a pretty strong bias but just imagine for a second that UEFA built a totally bogus case against Man Utd, i bet most people would want someone to second check the grounds of the decision. I'm a lawyer so this kinda runs in my DNA but your starting point can't be "City is guily, the CAS decision is bullsh*t". You HAVE to assume that they're innocent and UEFA has to prove they're guilty, otherwise it means that UEFA can do whatever they want to clubs they don't like. Hire good lawyers, hire top financial analysts, find conclusive evidence and convict. Worst part being, UEFA drafted the rules so they knew statute of limitations would bar them.
I think they were hoping that due to city’s lack of cooperation with the investigation they could waive the statue of limitations. At least that’s what I read in the Athletic about the issue a few months ago.
 
For what it's worth, I admire @padr81 and @BobbyManc for sticking around and responding to reply after reply, trying to defend their arguments. I won't get into those arguments again, just stating that it would have been easier to lie low and pop up later. They didn't hide, to their credit.

I also think Man City are corrupt as feck, and got away on a technicality because their oil money lawyers were better than UEFA's inept folks. They are not guilty by law, but at least we all know the ethics of what happened.

But hey, money talks. And if you have dirty, oily money, put it into football right now and watch it come out clean on the other side.
Seconded! Some much needed banter :drool: so long as it stays banter
 
For what it's worth, I admire @padr81 and @BobbyManc for sticking around and responding to reply after reply, trying to defend their arguments. I won't get into those arguments again, just stating that it would have been easier to lie low and pop up later. They didn't hide, to their credit.

I also think Man City are corrupt as feck, and got away on a technicality because their oil money lawyers were better than UEFA's inept folks. They are not guilty by law, but at least we all know the ethics of what happened.

But hey, money talks. And if you have dirty, oily money, put it into football right now and watch it come out clean on the other side.

See thats why I like this place, on another forum people would be roaring for bannings. We can disagree, argue, have a laugh and no one falls out. Honestly its why this place is such a good forum particularly for a football forums (99% of them are vile rubbish).
 
It was probably very easy to refute. I'm sure if we hacked the emails of any large business we'd read some eye-raising things that, when actually put into context - as City will have done at CAS - becomes much more mundane.
Pretty sure I have seen you laughing at Trump supporters. You are not any better.
 
See thats why I like this place, on another forum people would be roaring for bannings. We can disagree, argue, have a laugh and no one falls out. Honestly its why this place is such a good forum particularly for a football forums (99% of them are vile rubbish).
Something I have always wondered, other than us, who do City consider their biggest rivals?
 
There's several reasons justifying statute of limitations, it's been discussed by lawyers forever, the main reasons being the fact that defendents can loose evidence to disprove the claim over time, that it shows the lack of diligence from the plaintiff, and that litigation of old cases can have consequences that aren't proportionate with the original offense. That's a basic legal rule, you can't brush it off when it suits you even if it seems unfair.
To a degree, but five years is ridiculously short. Time-barring doesn't apply everywhere though, eg financial services.
 


If you need me to summarise:

To Simon Pearce, the representative of the Executive Affairs Authority of Abu Dhabi.

We need to show that money we are attributing to partnership income is separate from our equity funding.


I know it is more complicated for Mohamed Al Mazrouei — Undersecretary of the Crown Prince Court of Abu Dhabi — to split our funding up into separate payments from different entities, but we need to do so to comply with regulation.

Sincerely, Graham Wallace, Chief Financial Officer Manchester City


That reads to me like they are making sure Abu Dhabi's investment is going to be done in a way that adheres to FFP rules? I admit it may well be going over my head though. Nevertheless, in that same thread the author goes on to boast about how rigorous UEFA's investigation will have been and the unlikelihood of City overturning it, so I'll take Mr. Harris's interpretation of the email with the caution that it merits.
 
Insignificant evidence or time barred. Looks to me like no real evidence of any wrong doing and more than likely the time barred ones would be the same. I'd like to apologise to city for believing them guilty.

Would now be great to see uefa go over the books of the leagues 19 other clubs so they can drag them through the mud wrongly too.
Of course you would believe your dodgy club is squeaky clean. I got no respect for you lot.
 
not even surprised, what kind of precedent does this set though?
 
Something I have always wondered, other than us, who do City consider their biggest rivals?

While we're on different levels it was United for years. The best way to describe it though is wanting to one up your big brother when he genuinely swats you away like you are nothing. Then we went to Abu Dhabi, got steroids and made him take notice.

Aside from you it was nobody really (Gillingham maybe, I just picked them at random). At the current time though I'd say its Liverpool not only because they are a good team, but because of them attacking a bus of our players, hacking our scouting network and getting away relatively free, vilifying Raheem in the meida and thumping us in the league. Also because James Milner is a dick who celebrated a nothing goal in a meaningless league game like he'd scored the winner in the World Cup Final (can't speak for them all but I'm petty like that). I won't say the majority of City fans, but many dislike the Pool far more than United at this minute anyway.
 
:lol: :lol:
Honestly though, do they have even have any?

Liverpool. Seen as they're actually capable of challenging us. We tend not to see sides who we have finished above for seven consecutive seasons now as 'rivals'. More like noisy neighbours ;)
 
While we're on different levels it was United for years. The best way to describe it though is wanting to one up your big brother when he genuinely swats you away like you are nothing. Then we went to Abu Dhabi, got steroids and made him take notice.

At the current time though I'd say its Liverpool not only because they are a good team, but because of them attacking a bus of our players, hacking our scouting network and getting away relatively free, vilifying Raheem in the meida and thumping us in the league. Also because James Milner is a dick who celebrated a nothing goal in a meaningless league game like he'd scored the winner in the World Cup Final (can't speak for them all but I'm petty like that). I won't say the majority of City fans, but many dislike the Pool far more than United at this minute anyway. But as soon as you get back to the top you'll likely be top of the shitlist again.
Makes sense giving the context of the league the last 3 years. At least hating Liverpool is a common trait!

Also, glad you share our confidence :p