Isn't that more City like and less annoying than them you know actually potentially winning it? I know what I prefer.
Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million
- Thread starter roonster09
- Start date
Do we find out the result of this before the season restarts? That changes the entire complex of the CL race if so (and the ban remains).
Last edited:
Indeed its not conclusive it is as it says a grey area... though it does give credence to the fact that should city loose with c.a.s. the process could still have legal recourse to European courts (and its not like they don't have the money and lawyers to do so)
Nobody can say conclusively if ffp complies with eu competition law till a case is brought and a judgement given
Depending how things go that could be a line city pursue... I've never claimed its a certainty or conclusive the only people who have said that have said ffp is totally legal under eu law and its up to UEFA’s (as I say that is up to eu judges if a case is brought and there is potentially a big enough grey area to make a case in this regard)
In around a month I believe they are hoping to announce a judgement in early/ mid July
Last edited:
What is the CAS record with corruption? Are they beyond reproach? This is a matter of state for Abu Dhabi so I wouldn't be surprised if they threw a couple of Dubai luxury condos at the judges wives in order to get a favorable judgment.
Not before CL restarts in early August.
it already is early June
sorry july... fixed
Don't forget 'You only made this law because my wife got her driving licence.'
Nah. This Covid thing has delayed everything. It’s mid April.
30 Million gets you a 25 years old Fellaini these days.
UEFA You fecking idiots. We're talking about one of the top 3 richest clubs (plus daddy's money of course), milk them dry. Ban them for 15 years. 100 million reduces the amount by one year. Minimum 2 years.
UEFA You fecking idiots. We're talking about one of the top 3 richest clubs (plus daddy's money of course), milk them dry. Ban them for 15 years. 100 million reduces the amount by one year. Minimum 2 years.
Look at the invites. More clubs are invited from some countries than another. That’s a fact. What you have are lawyers giving opinions. Jog on yourself and take your misplaced arrogance with you.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"At the end of the 3-day hearing, CAS confirms 2 of the 3 judges also sat on the first Man City appeal that dismissed attempt to throw out UEFA's case on procedural grounds."
I don’t think there’s much to read into that, especially if it’s supposed to imply they may be predisposed against City. It sounds like City’s first attempt was spurious and was designed more to pre-empt the case against UEFA rather than achieve anything tangible. And the verdict was not unsympathetic to City - it did conclude that the leaks were ‘worrisome’ but until UEFA punished City there was nothing for CAS to adjudicate on.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Most people seem to think it will be knocked down to 1 year. I do too. However if they keep the two full years it will be hilarious to watch the meltdown.
I don't think it can be. I'm pretty sure its an all or nothing. Either Uefa were prejudiced (I hate that word) in their decision whilst looking into City or they weren't. There is no in between here. Either Uefa's judgement stands or the process was unfair and we are walking away free.
I hope it stands then! Nothing personal against you, but the club should be help accountable.
Not saying the others didn't do anything wrong.
Thats fair. Honestly if we're guilty we deserve whats coming, if not we'll get off. If CAS finds in favor of uefa I don't think any City fan can argue and just accept guilt and whatever punishment it brings
Which way do you think it’s going to go?
It will be “Suspended Ban”. Naughty boys.. slap on wrist..
Nothing personal but I hope that too. Not because it's City but as a precedent for other clubs.
I don't like it when CAS say "yeah it was probably right but the actual punishment should be reduced". You're either guilty of breaching the rules or not.
From the way I look at this, I think it won't be overruled because cooking the book was illegal and fraud which violated the law, it applies to other all businesses, not only sporting.
City's argument is UEFA banned them based on a leak from the source. I don't think they have a chance of getting decision overruled by CAS
City's argument is UEFA banned them based on a leak from the source. I don't think they have a chance of getting decision overruled by CAS
Yes and what they did was still illegal no matter the source. I think they will get banned.
Yes, but the severity of the punishment is determined by what rules you've breached. Otherwise UEFA could ban clubs for life if they wanted, so long as they were guilty.
Anyway, I don't think this is likely to apply in City's case. I've been listening to a few things about the case and read bits of the judgement from the first CAS appeal City made, and it sounds like City's case is going to mostly pivot on the question of whether UEFA are time-barred from investigating the breaches. So it could be the case that even if City are bang to rights on all charges, it's irrelevant as CAS could conclude that UEFA did not have the jurisdiction to investigate. The flipside is if CAS side with UEFA it seems they're very unlikely to take a sympathetic stance towards City, in which case it will be the two-year ban with no reduction.
Honestly I have no clue. I think if our case boils down to "UEFA were out to get us" we will lose. I just dont see how we prove that. Even if we get off on that kind of technicality it's a hollow win as it doesn't make the leaks less credible.
We need to win and disprove the allegations to come away from this rep in tact.
Outside of reputation losing this could have a knock on effect with the premier league.
The club have appeared pretty confident from the start so I hope they have good reason but I've no idea why. They also might be putting a brave face on things, not like they could come out and say "we got caught, we're fecked".
Your owners have bribed the right pockets this time probably.
So, hijacking @RedPed's schedule, the games in red are after the verdict and our match against Southampton is on the day of the verdict
If City lose the appeal, could they take this to the ECJ?
If it does get thrown out, obviously depends on results but the last games of the season could be very tasty. Could be winner takes CL between Us & Leicester, also Chelsea & Wolves 
UEFA asked the date to be changed from the 10th to the 13th for UEFA Cup draws, if I was City I'd have told them to eff off, so on this totally spurious reasoning I think City are getting off with no ban.
Would honestly prefer this verdict came after the season ends. I'm really worried about us relaxing once we realise 5th gets CL.
Dont think City have a say in it mate.
Sounds like UEFA got word and want to avoid an awkward cup draw to be honest.
Not the ECJ, the Swiss Court is the only possible step after. That could only be if it was a dispute about a point of law I believe, so it’s very unlikely to go there as CAS are more than competent. It’s CAS or bust, most likely.
The reputation damage is already out there no matter what CAS says. Those emails where they mock the death of someone (on UEFA’s team I recall?) are indefensible. It also seems incredibly amateurish at times. The stuff about sponsorships will look dodgy even if it transpires no actual rules were broken in doing so, although people already thought that anyway to be fair.
The telling thing about the case is City refused to cooperate with UEFA’s investigation, hence the severe punishment. That suggests, to a layman like myself, City’s stance has got to be about the legitimacy of the investigation itself. Otherwise it’s a suicidal choice to not cooperate, as they know it exacerbates the punishment. They must be confident in their interpretation. UEFA aren’t mugs though and they have had very senior lawyers approve of the process on their side. My instinct is from what I’ve heard and read it seems hard to see UEFA having the jurisdiction for breaches as far back as 2012. They’ll have strong and compelling arguments for why they do, but they’ll have to convince CAS (which is why people viewing this as the onus purely being on City is also wrong, UEFA have to defend their own position as much as City have to undermine it)
What do you mean “IF we’re guilty? City are guiltier than the fat kid in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, who ate all the candy. It’s just a question of whether some technical loophole can be found.
There is overwhelming evidence of falsified sponsorship deals, and offshore payments to players. And that’s just what we know about. City have subverted football since their owners arrived on the scene. And if they win this case, even on a technicality, they’ll do irreparable damage to FFP. Which, before anyone says anything, has shown remarkable success in forcing clubs to be sustainable. The overall profitability of clubs, and rate of bankruptcies, has improved enormously since its revised introduction.
Outside the immediate vicinity of their own club, there is not a single supporter or industry professional (aside from those who have had their pockets lined), who would defend City against allegations of having a corrosive, unethical, and destabilising effect on world football since the Sheik rolled up.
Let’s be honest, they’ve gotten away with it for so long because money talks, and they’ll probably get away with it again; because, well, money talks....But I hope to god they have the book thrown at them. Not because they are City - I never really saw them as a credible rival - but because of how they’ve behaved. That should be all that matters.
This is getting that petty that I wouldn't put it past UEFA to disband the Champions League and create a new competition that excluded Man City in some capacity.
Wasn't that restriction based on an investigation that, we have know learned, City cooked their books in in order to prevent further sanction?
Theirs no chance that would happen. The TV & sponsorship contracts would need to be honoured.
