Man City CAS

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Apparently one of the three man CAS committee who ruled on this works for a law firm that gets the majority of their business from the Abu Dhabi United Group. 

 

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. 

The committee is nominated. 1 by Man City, 1 by UEFA and 1 by CAS. Not uncommon practice in arbitration cases 

[Corky]

They've probably seen how bad third to fifth have been this weekend and are terrified our co-efficient will drop off the face of the earth if Man City aren't involved

[That_Dude]

FFP is for plebs.

 

One day we will be an established top 4 team, be able to turn over decisions like this too and our signings will be validated even 14 days after the deadline.

Edited 14 July 2020 by That_Dude

[AndyK]

10 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

The committee is nominated. 1 by Man City, 1 by UEFA and 1 by CAS. Not uncommon practice in arbitration cases 

 

Correct. The UEFA choice has apparently done 150 arbitrations (written in the Times, I think).

Seems quite reasonable that you would pick a panellist you know.

[AndyK]

14 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Seems like they basically got away with it because UEFA took too long to investigate them ! 

 

As a Manchester City fan, that seems a little simplistic (from what is known at the moment). I accept that the detail is not known at the moment, so I may be wrong.

 

Certainly some allegations were dismissed due to time - it may be clearer how much when the fuller judgement emerges, but there won't be any assessment of guilt/innocence. It seems like a weird decision to pursue a charge that was barred though, and looks bad on UEFA's side. That it all seems to have been triggered by Der Spiegel publishing some of the hacked emails is partly the reason that they ran out of time - UEFA just hadn't heard of the idea before.

 

The CAS summary reads to say that the other allegations which might bring a ban were not sufficiently supported. Again the judgement may have more detail, but it is possible that UEFA had some emails with no context and not much else. I don't see how any rational court could take a few sentences and determine guilt.

It looks like UEFA basically had some evidence "for" (the emails), and nothing much "against" - they decided to go high, but must have known it would go to CAS from there. That seems like a curious decision if their case was quite weak.

 

It also seems certain to me that the club did obstruct, probably by just refusing to engage properly. The club made a statement that they considered a UEFA matter investigated by UEFA and judged by UEFA was prejudged - that indicates the thinking about what was going on. It looks like CAS decided that obstruction is fineable not bannable.

[gerrytaggart]

11 minutes ago, AndyK said:

 

Correct. The UEFA choice has apparently done 150 arbitrations (written in the Times, I think).

Seems quite reasonable that you would pick a panellist you know.

Pick a panelist you know and then send them in there with a couple of bags of cash. 

[AndyK]

13 minutes ago, gerrytaggart said:

Pick a panelist you know and then send them in there with a couple of bags of cash. 

Do people still use cash? I suppose it's more useable than a barrel of oil.

[joachim1965]

3 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Do people still use cash? I suppose it's more useable than a barrel of oil.

Why have you come here to try and justify the complete corruption that is Man City, FFP and CAS.

Genuine question.

[Footballwipe]

Dunno if it's been mentioned, but the Guardian's podcast made a good point yesterday. Man City's original argument, by all accounts, was that FFP prevented them from becoming an "elite" club. Well, now they are an "elite" club, and they've managed to successfully weaken FFP to the point of no return. Thus I hope to everything that they don't go sqeualing to the media or football authorities when other teams spend their way to the "elite" and potentially risk their position in winning trophies and qualifying for the big tournaments.

 

With this judgement, the upper echelons of football are even more just a fun game for petro-states and the world's richest people. We're just there to provide the crowd noise now.

[AndyK]

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

Why have you come here to try and justify the complete corruption that is Man City, FFP and CAS.

Genuine question.

I disagree with that characterisation.

CAS are not corrupt.

FFP has some merits, but was hijacked by the G14 to stop others breaking into their cosy club. The removal of anything to do with debt that were originally in the proposals showed that.

Manchester City - we'll disagree on that. The club failed to meet the restrictions when they were brought in despite their best efforts (there's some shenanigans there, but it's long and dull), and got punished. They then got charged again, and an independent court has found the charges not proved.

 

As for why here? I was interested to see what Leicester fans thought about the whole FFP/CAS thing, and to see how a different club's fans perceived what was going on. Not much point engaging with the red hordes from other clubs.

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Dunno if it's been mentioned, but the Guardian's podcast made a good point yesterday. Man City's original argument, by all accounts, was that FFP prevented them from becoming an "elite" club.

That seems a fair point and one I'd agree with (not in Citys case, but for all clubs).

Edited 14 July 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[joachim1965]

3 minutes ago, AndyK said:

I disagree with that characterisation.

CAS are not corrupt.

FFP has some merits, but was hijacked by the G14 to stop others breaking into their cosy club. The removal of anything to do with debt that were originally in the proposals showed that.

Manchester City - we'll disagree on that. The club failed to meet the restrictions when they were brought in despite their best efforts (there's some shenanigans there, but it's long and dull), and got punished. They then got charged again, and an independent court has found the charges not proved.

 

As for why here? I was interested to see what Leicester fans thought about the whole FFP/CAS thing, and to see how a different club's fans perceived what was going on. Not much point engaging with the red hordes from other clubs.

Not even read this post.

We have a number of well respected posters on here who are supporters of other clubs, butif you think anybody on here is going to listen to your bollox about this being the right decision you are mistaken, please do us all a favour and toddle off back to where you came from me old fruit.

[Finnegan]

Kept my head down a bit really when this came out because I know how wound up people are in general this week and it's understandable.

 

But I was against Man City getting done in the first place and am against FFP in general so, I have to be honest, I'm pretty glad it's been over turned and I hope it it has a lasting impact on FFP. People need to wake up and accept that FFP is about clubs with the biggest commercial footprint trying to create a closed shop, it's not about protecting the little guy or creating a level playing field. You want to talk about salary and spending caps that have a flat rate regardless of your revenue as a club? I'm all in. FFP itself is ridiculous.

 

We were good enough to be third on merit, good enough to finish top four on merit, I still maintain we've got the third best first eleven in the league on paper - it was ours for the taking. We ****ed it up. Getting salty and throwing accusations of corruption at CAS doesn't stop the fact we could, should and would still be about 10 points clear of 4th right now if we'd done nothing differently more than just beat the bottom two clubs in the league this season and nothing else. That's on us and us alone.

Edited 14 July 2020 by Finnegan

[AndyK]

12 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Dunno if it's been mentioned, but the Guardian's podcast made a good point yesterday. Man City's original argument, by all accounts, was that FFP prevented them from becoming an "elite" club. Well, now they are an "elite" club, and they've managed to successfully weaken FFP to the point of no return. Thus I hope to everything that they don't go sqeualing to the media or football authorities when other teams spend their way to the "elite" and potentially risk their position in winning trophies and qualifying for the big tournaments.

 

With this judgement, the upper echelons of football are even more just a fun game for petro-states and the world's richest people. We're just there to provide the crowd noise now.

 

Agree with all of that - it'll look quite pathetic to whine about others. I do however fully expect Manchester City to try making it as difficult for others to elbow their way in. The people at the top are not in it for egalitarian reasons.

 

And the last part - sadly, I think this is true, and holding that against the self-anointed top sides seems reasonable. The vast amount of money from the CL has broken the game. We watched the sky4 make hay for 20 years, before scraping in before their FFP trapdoor came down - Gary Neville was right last night that the whole FFP set-up prevents gatecrashing. Every major league is broken in the same way.

[coolhandfox]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

But I was against Man City getting done in the first place and am against FFP in general so, I have to be honest, I'm pretty glad it's been over turned and I hope it it has a lasting impact on FFP. People need to wake up and accept that FFP is about clubs with the biggest commercial footprint trying to create a closed shop, it's not about protecting the little guy or creating a level playing field. You want to talk about salary and spending caps that have a flat rate regardless of your revenue as a club? I'm all in. FFP itself is ridiculous.

Agree 100%, its to stop clubs with a wealth owner upsetting the status quo of the Barc, Real Madrid, Manchester Utd etc.

[joachim1965]

59 minutes ago, AndyK said:

I disagree with that characterisation.

CAS are not corrupt.

FFP has some merits, but was hijacked by the G14 to stop others breaking into their cosy club. The removal of anything to do with debt that were originally in the proposals showed that.

Manchester City - we'll disagree on that. The club failed to meet the restrictions when they were brought in despite their best efforts (there's some shenanigans there, but it's long and dull), and got punished. They then got charged again, and an independent court has found the charges not proved.

 

As for why here? I was interested to see what Leicester fans thought about the whole FFP/CAS thing, and to see how a different club's fans perceived what was going on. Not much point engaging with the red hordes from other clubs.

Having now had time to read this maybe I was a tad harsh earlier.

I read the first line and thought the rest would be bollox, but to be fair it wasn't. 

I do stand by my points that cas are corrupt and also you will not convince anybody on here that the decision they made was right or fair.

Edited 14 July 2020 by joachim1965

[joachim1965]

46 minutes ago, AndyK said:

 

 

 - Gary Neville was right last night that the whole FFP set-up prevents gatecrashing. Every major league is broken in the same way.

Thi I do agree with.

[AndyK]

25 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Having now had time to read this maybe I was a tad harsh earlier.

I read the first line and thought the rest would be bollox, but to be fair it wasn't. 

I do stand by my points that cas are corrupt and also you will not convince anybody on here that the decision they made was right or fair.

 

Fair enough.

It would be dull if everyone agreed. Am I right that you think CAS were bought off then, or that they're just incompetent?

A fuller judgement is meant to be out this week - I guess it'll show what they looked at and what they didn't.

[joachim1965]

25 minutes ago, AndyK said:

 

Fair enough.

It would be dull if everyone agreed. Am I right that you think CAS were bought off then, or that they're just incompetent?

A fuller judgement is meant to be out this week - I guess it'll show what they looked at and what they didn't.

I'd like to say incompetent but just feel the verdict was inevitable,  maybe some brown envelopes were involved but unfortunately us mere mortals will never know.

It's time for clubs to stick 2 fingers up to ffp and just spend what they want now.

A fine is all that can be given now the precedent has been set.

[CosbehFox]

The incompetence was UEFA trying to impose punishments on events which were five years old and therefore 'time-locked'. 

 

Similarly that it took an internet hacker to gain the origin of the information rather than UEFA themselves speaks volumes

[Spudulike]

44 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

I'd like to say incompetent but just feel the verdict was inevitable,  maybe some brown envelopes were involved but unfortunately us mere mortals will never know.

It's time for clubs to stick 2 fingers up to ffp and just spend what they want now.

A fine is all that can be given now the precedent has been set.

Spend what they want but must still be able to cover it up or not engage in any investigation until it time expires. Shows it can be done. 

 

I'm actually quite pleased that another club has broken into the cosy club and will take a portion away from the other members. 

 

Newcastle next? 

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Agree 100%, its to stop clubs with a wealth owner upsetting the status quo of the Barc, Real Madrid, Manchester Utd etc.

..do you really believe that was the reasoning behind FFP or that the eventual ring fencing of the elite clubs have now become the consequence!!!

FFP seems a great idea in respect of teams attempting to adhere to a system which down the line would not lead to their demise. We are aware that a team folding is not just a squad of players losing their jobs but also impacts a community.

  There is a need for the FA, UEFA to seek a way of mitigating this, and the use of a system which basically said you can only spend a certain percentage of your football income seemed to be a fair and long overdue method of ensuring the longevity of the clubs.

  As usual most new laws are scrutinised and someone attempts to get around it in some fashion.Without going into the Manchester City case (I do not know the exact details) any attempt to circumnavigate the ethos or the literal meaning of the law should be classed as an offence and punishment meted out as laid down by the institutions.

[enmac]

On 12/07/2020 at 21:25, Webbo said:

 

Court probably scared of being sued by Man City for 100s of millions plus costly court fees. 

[AndyK]

3 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

I'd like to say incompetent but just feel the verdict was inevitable,  maybe some brown envelopes were involved but unfortunately us mere mortals will never know.

It's time for clubs to stick 2 fingers up to ffp and just spend what they want now.

A fine is all that can be given now the precedent has been set.

Thanks,

I know you're referring to CAS, but the pressing of time-barred matters does look utterly incompetent from UEFA. Baffling really. I doubt anyone would be surprised by UEFA being incompetent though.

I think UEFA will certainly have to rethink FFP, although it'll take ages to bring a change into force, and then clubs will find ways to subvert those. I don't exempt my club from that in any way.

 

The difficulty for UEFA in this seems to me that they are trying to prove financial malpractice, something that major fraud trials find difficult with all their powers of forcing disclosure. UEFA have no power to require opening of books, but proceeded as if it was a fait accomplit. I just don't understand the approach, if it was done with expectation that it would work.

 

The weight put on the emails seems strange, because if the email reply to almost any of them is "Don't be ridiculous, that's against the rules and we will not condone doing that", then the value of that one line email falls apart. The presence of an email with no context was never going to pass muster to a judge.

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Kept my head down a bit really when this came out because I know how wound up people are in general this week and it's understandable.

 

But I was against Man City getting done in the first place and am against FFP in general so, I have to be honest, I'm pretty glad it's been over turned and I hope it it has a lasting impact on FFP. People need to wake up and accept that FFP is about clubs with the biggest commercial footprint trying to create a closed shop, it's not about protecting the little guy or creating a level playing field. You want to talk about salary and spending caps that have a flat rate regardless of your revenue as a club? I'm all in. FFP itself is ridiculous.

 

We were good enough to be third on merit, good enough to finish top four on merit, I still maintain we've got the third best first eleven in the league on paper - it was ours for the taking. We ****ed it up. Getting salty and throwing accusations of corruption at CAS doesn't stop the fact we could, should and would still be about 10 points clear of 4th right now if we'd done nothing differently more than just beat the bottom two clubs in the league this season and nothing else. That's on us and us alone.

Yep.

 

Speaking to some Liverpool fans yesterday, 'it's to protect the smaller clubs, we don't want fans losing clubs', absolute horseshit. You want to be able to have a bigger transfer and wage budget than clubs like us, Everton, Newcastle and Burnley every season.

 

When I suggested a salary cap 'that'd be pointless, because players would have no reason to leave teams like Burnley and go to bigger clubs like United or Liverpool'. Mmm, strange they're against that