"the CAS panel found that...many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations"
So it wasn't that they weren't guilty. It's just that the evidence submitted was deemed too old. I mean, that's a pretty big limiting factor in any investigation. That you can't actually use evidence from the time period being investigated, as it's considered too old. Talk about a cop out
Man City probably said how much to look away?
What's the point in UEFA even bothering with this? They were so confident, and got taken to the cleaners by city's lawyers.
They should just scrap FFP. Nobody adheres to it anyway.
And I know City are obviously generating false revenue, but it can't be a patch on PSG.
They signed Neymar and Mbappe in consecutive summers and have very little income given there's not much money in the French league. Why on earth haven't they gone in on them?
Personally never saw the point in FFP, is it really needed to protect clubs going bust? i doubt it. Its a vain attempt to stop new clubs upsetting the apple cart. The damage has been done anyway, theres already lottery clubs in there and its boring when teams have a monopoly over stuff too. Look at Bayern in the bundesliga for example, joke league. Theyre desperate to stop teams being able to compete with Bayern financially.
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 9 minutes ago
Man City probably said how much to look away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
€10Million
prob the 20m they knocked off the 30m fine
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
prob the 20m they knocked off the 30m fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably.
comment by merrysupersteve (U1132)
posted 37 minutes ago
"the CAS panel found that...many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations"
So it wasn't that they weren't guilty. It's just that the evidence submitted was deemed too old. I mean, that's a pretty big limiting factor in any investigation. That you can't actually use evidence from the time period being investigated, as it's considered too old. Talk about a cop out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wouldn't stick with any other crime would it?
"Well you murdered someone, but because this evidence we've found is a bit old, you're fine."
Which would be why they also found them to be not established too.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Which would be why they also found them to be not established too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Difficult for anything to be established when the principle evidence (emails detailing their wrongdoing) isn't deemed admissable. It's a technicality, nothing else. If anything, this verdict further reduces any lingering doubt that City were guilty. Otherwise, they'd have been cleared, rather than got off based on a refusal to consider evidence from the time period being investigated
We were cleared though, that’s a completely false narrative. Where have you got that the emails are inadmissible from? The report isn’t even out yet and we’ve said we provided a body of evidence to back up what we’ve said all along.
We didn’t get off solely due to time barring, I don’t get where people are getting that from where it clearly says in the report that it was that and the allegations not being established.
I think people need to read the top line of the CAS report too.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true melt
The evidence was deemed too old to use even though it was from the time period being investigated. Absolute farce
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true melt
The evidence was deemed too old to use even though it was from the time period being investigated. Absolute farce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. It would be difficult, well impossible, to find them guilty of a crime for which evidence can't actually be used in court
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true melt
The evidence was deemed too old to use even though it was from the time period being investigated. Absolute farce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't, I really don't get where people are getting that from. It says very clearly that the allegations were also not established. Even the headline judgment is "Manchester City FC did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions".
The evidence was considered for all the allegations post the time that UEFA had already sanctioned us for (which was most of them, given UEFA alleged it was 2013-2016).
The time barring hasn't got anything to do with age of evidence, its to do with the sanction and settlement we'd already received, people seem to be getting what that time barring is completely wrong. The exact same thing has happened with UEFA before.
We need to wait for the CAS verdict to come out in full to see the evidence we provided and the full justification for the verdict, there's an awful lot of people leaping to conclusions that go against what's been said though even up to this point, let alone the judgment itself.
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it was less that, more that we wanted it to go outside of UEFA ourselves.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it was less that, more that we wanted it to go outside of UEFA ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why though if you'd done nothing wrong? What benefit would that have?
Corruption all the way down from top to bottom. They had a chance to really make an example of City, and they completely bottled it.
FFP is dead in the water now. Anything goes.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it was less that, more that we wanted it to go outside of UEFA ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why though if you'd done nothing wrong? What benefit would that have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve complained about the process throughout. I’ve not seen it discussed much yet but there’s an awful lot of questions for Uefa to answer now about that process and how they could come to a conclusion that their own regulations don’t allow them to for some of them. That only comes out when it gets to arbitration panels like CAS.
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 4 minutes ago
Corruption all the way down from top to bottom. They had a chance to really make an example of City, and they completely bottled it.
FFP is dead in the water now. Anything goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It had nothing to do with wider ffp. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t equally see trying to make an example out of us as being a potentially corrupt part too though...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Dirty Money Talks.
Page 1 of 2
posted on 13/7/20
"the CAS panel found that...many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations"
So it wasn't that they weren't guilty. It's just that the evidence submitted was deemed too old. I mean, that's a pretty big limiting factor in any investigation. That you can't actually use evidence from the time period being investigated, as it's considered too old. Talk about a cop out
posted on 13/7/20
Man City probably said how much to look away?
posted on 13/7/20
What's the point in UEFA even bothering with this? They were so confident, and got taken to the cleaners by city's lawyers.
They should just scrap FFP. Nobody adheres to it anyway.
posted on 13/7/20
And I know City are obviously generating false revenue, but it can't be a patch on PSG.
They signed Neymar and Mbappe in consecutive summers and have very little income given there's not much money in the French league. Why on earth haven't they gone in on them?
posted on 13/7/20
Personally never saw the point in FFP, is it really needed to protect clubs going bust? i doubt it. Its a vain attempt to stop new clubs upsetting the apple cart. The damage has been done anyway, theres already lottery clubs in there and its boring when teams have a monopoly over stuff too. Look at Bayern in the bundesliga for example, joke league. Theyre desperate to stop teams being able to compete with Bayern financially.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 9 minutes ago
Man City probably said how much to look away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
€10Million
posted on 13/7/20
prob the 20m they knocked off the 30m fine
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
prob the 20m they knocked off the 30m fine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by merrysupersteve (U1132)
posted 37 minutes ago
"the CAS panel found that...many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations"
So it wasn't that they weren't guilty. It's just that the evidence submitted was deemed too old. I mean, that's a pretty big limiting factor in any investigation. That you can't actually use evidence from the time period being investigated, as it's considered too old. Talk about a cop out
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That wouldn't stick with any other crime would it?
"Well you murdered someone, but because this evidence we've found is a bit old, you're fine."
posted on 13/7/20
Which would be why they also found them to be not established too.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
Which would be why they also found them to be not established too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Difficult for anything to be established when the principle evidence (emails detailing their wrongdoing) isn't deemed admissable. It's a technicality, nothing else. If anything, this verdict further reduces any lingering doubt that City were guilty. Otherwise, they'd have been cleared, rather than got off based on a refusal to consider evidence from the time period being investigated
posted on 13/7/20
We were cleared though, that’s a completely false narrative. Where have you got that the emails are inadmissible from? The report isn’t even out yet and we’ve said we provided a body of evidence to back up what we’ve said all along.
We didn’t get off solely due to time barring, I don’t get where people are getting that from where it clearly says in the report that it was that and the allegations not being established.
I think people need to read the top line of the CAS report too.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true melt
The evidence was deemed too old to use even though it was from the time period being investigated. Absolute farce
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true melt
The evidence was deemed too old to use even though it was from the time period being investigated. Absolute farce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. It would be difficult, well impossible, to find them guilty of a crime for which evidence can't actually be used in court
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People #BLM (U21889)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
We were cleared though,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do you have a fine of €10Million?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the verdict! There were two charges. We were cleared of the main allegation and found guilty of the second one. The discussion on here was about the first one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely true melt
The evidence was deemed too old to use even though it was from the time period being investigated. Absolute farce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't, I really don't get where people are getting that from. It says very clearly that the allegations were also not established. Even the headline judgment is "Manchester City FC did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions".
The evidence was considered for all the allegations post the time that UEFA had already sanctioned us for (which was most of them, given UEFA alleged it was 2013-2016).
The time barring hasn't got anything to do with age of evidence, its to do with the sanction and settlement we'd already received, people seem to be getting what that time barring is completely wrong. The exact same thing has happened with UEFA before.
We need to wait for the CAS verdict to come out in full to see the evidence we provided and the full justification for the verdict, there's an awful lot of people leaping to conclusions that go against what's been said though even up to this point, let alone the judgment itself.
posted on 13/7/20
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
posted on 13/7/20
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it was less that, more that we wanted it to go outside of UEFA ourselves.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it was less that, more that we wanted it to go outside of UEFA ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why though if you'd done nothing wrong? What benefit would that have?
posted on 13/7/20
Corruption all the way down from top to bottom. They had a chance to really make an example of City, and they completely bottled it.
FFP is dead in the water now. Anything goes.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 2 minutes ago
What doesn't make sense is why if you are totally innocent, why you wouldn't want to have just been transparent in the first place and saved yourself probably millions in legal fees.
Seems like you're hiding something, could be something completely unrelated, mind you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think it was less that, more that we wanted it to go outside of UEFA ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why though if you'd done nothing wrong? What benefit would that have?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve complained about the process throughout. I’ve not seen it discussed much yet but there’s an awful lot of questions for Uefa to answer now about that process and how they could come to a conclusion that their own regulations don’t allow them to for some of them. That only comes out when it gets to arbitration panels like CAS.
posted on 13/7/20
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 4 minutes ago
Corruption all the way down from top to bottom. They had a chance to really make an example of City, and they completely bottled it.
FFP is dead in the water now. Anything goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It had nothing to do with wider ffp. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t equally see trying to make an example out of us as being a potentially corrupt part too though...
posted on 13/7/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 1 of 2