Man city (not) banned from Champions league for 2 years [Mod note see first post]

Isn't this City's 2nd offence? What's the main basis of their appeal?

Stephen A Smith

6 wrote: »

Isn't this City's 2nd offence? What's the main basis of their appeal?

Far as I am aware it is in regards the first offence. They’re being charged with falsifying accounts and not cooperating with an investigation.

Their appeal is that they have ‘irrefutable evidence’ that they are innocent of all charges.

A quick trial by video call and a decision within 3 weeks seems to say the case is pretty cut and clear one way or the other in terms of the charges and being innocent or guilty.

Stephen A Smith

https://twitter.com/gffn/status/1273992894400139264?s=21

An interesting development. Perhaps an indication of what way the CAS ruling will go for clubs who challenge bans from competitions.

TitianGerm

Stephen A Smith wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gffn/status/1273992894400139264?s=21

An interesting development. Perhaps an indication of what way the CAS ruling will go for clubs who challenge bans from competitions.

Is this Marseille second breach or did they intentionally provide false information to UEFA?

Stephen A Smith

TitianGerm wrote: »

Is this Marseille second breach or did they intentionally provide false information to UEFA?

Second, which is once more than City if I’ve read correctly.

irishgeo

City 2nd offence. This actually relates to the 1st offence as basically city lied during the settlement on the first offence by not providing all the information.

City appeal is based on the fact UEFA rules state they can't reopen case after a settlement or investigate issues over 5 years old.

Verdict is due early July.

Stephen A Smith

irishgeo wrote: »

City 2nd offence. This actually relates to the 1st offence as basically city lied during the settlement on the first offence by not providing all the information.

City appeal is based on the fact UEFA rules state they can't reopen case after a settlement or investigate issues over 5 years old.

Verdict is due early July.

Bit of a contradiction there, if it relates to the first offence then it’s still the first offence. Willing to be corrected on that though as I’m not 100% on it.

Their appeal is based on ‘irrefutable evidence’ that they are innocent, is what reporters writing about it are saying. Nothing about the issues being over 5 years old. I’m certain The Athletic wrote at the time of the ban that the club complained UEFA were unwilling to look at evidence provided to back up claims of no wrong doing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Stephen A Smith wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gffn/status/1273992894400139264?s=21

An interesting development. Perhaps an indication of what way the CAS ruling will go for clubs who challenge bans from competitions.

That's UEFAs initial decision - nothing to do with CAS unless Marseilles decide to appeal.

Stephen A Smith

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's UEFAs initial decision - nothing to do with CAS unless Marseilles decide to appeal.

I know that. Was just saying it might be an indication of how UEFA felt the case at CAS went and what the verdict could be from them. Of course it could also mean nothing.

I’m just thinking maybe UEFA don’t want to be heading to CAS for cases the length of their arm if they feel there is loopholes to exploit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Stephen A Smith wrote: »

I know that. Was just saying it might be an indication of how UEFA felt the case at CAS went and what the verdict could be from them. Of course it could also mean nothing.

I’m just thinking maybe UEFA don’t want to be heading to CAS for cases the length of their arm if they feel there is loopholes to exploit.

Did UEFA have any input into the appeal? Also, I'm pretty sure they don't get any feedback until this is done anddusted in the same way City don't.

Stephen A Smith

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Did UEFA have any input into the appeal? Also, I'm pretty sure they don't get any feedback until this is done anddusted in the same way City don't.

UEFA sent their best lawyers Miguel Delaney said. I’m sure the lawyers representing both organisations have briefed them both about what they think is the likely scenario. Of course they could be wrong with their predictions but you would imagine if one sides representatives think they have lost then they will inform them of it.

JoshRosen

Stephen A Smith wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gffn/status/1273992894400139264?s=21

An interesting development. Perhaps an indication of what way the CAS ruling will go for clubs who challenge bans from competitions.

Looks like you could be onto something alright. This lad gets the team sheet to leak early off Aguero when he’s not starting I’ve read online so I presume he’s been told that off him and that’s what Aguero has been briefed.


https://twitter.com/10josealvarez/status/1274798215737589760?s=21

y0ssar1an22

per google translate:

Manchester City is calm about its possible sanction and has thus transmitted it to its staff. They consider the view with UEFA very positive and even contemplate a suspension / postponement of it. If so, the club will shake the market with several important signings.

Cookiemunster

Sorry, what? Aguero leaks the teamsheet when he's not starting? Does that mean he doesn't leak it when he is starting? Why doesn't he leak it when he starts? Is it revenge for not starting or something? I'm calling BS to that. If it was true it would be very obvious and would be locked down by City very very quickly.

Your man might have a source at City and they may well be confident that they'll beat the charge, but there's no guarantee, and even that google translated quote is full of ifs and maybes.

Stephen A Smith

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

per google translate:

Manchester City is calm about its possible sanction and has thus transmitted it to its staff. They consider the view with UEFA very positive and even contemplate a suspension / postponement of it. If so, the club will shake the market with several important signings.

I assume the suspension/postponement points are lost in translation? Don’t think CAS have the power to suspend a judgement but not sure on it.

I am pretty sure that UEFA and City can reach a settlement between now and the judgement coming down. I believe that's pretty common in arbitrations for the two parties to be negotiating off the back of how the arbitration is going.

So if it did go very well for City at CAS, and both sides recognised that, I imagine UEFA would be offering them something in the next month to avoid the disaster of CAS siding with them entirely

Stephen A Smith

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Sorry, what? Aguero leaks the teamsheet when he's not starting? Does that mean he doesn't leak it when he is starting? Why doesn't he leak it when he starts? Is it revenge for not starting or something? I'm calling BS to that. If it was true it would be very obvious and would be locked down by City very very quickly.

Your man might have a source at City and they may well be confident that they'll beat the charge, but there's no guarantee, and even that google translated quote is full of ifs and maybes.

I’d imagine it’s just 5/10mins before the official announcement. Boost that guys followers etc. Every club has a leak to a reporter for that. Nothing big about it. Aguero probably can’t leak it when he’s starting due to a more vigorous warm up or something. Then again could be BS as you say.

ArmaniJeanss

As a fantasy football player, team line ups before the official 60 minute deadline are precious gold (especially if first game of weekend). Can't ever recall a consistent City leak of such important info as Aguero not starting.
Just checked the thread for last Wednesday (Aguero benched) and there was no info released earlier than it should be.

callaway92

A lot of people get the lineups pre kick-off.

Premier League clubs give them to the FA about 95 mins before KO and they send them to Opta a few mins after that.

Opta then input internally 80 mins before KO (to make sure they’re ready for the 60 minute Media embargo).

Anyone that has any contact in Opta that’s a full-time employee can see them. Same goes for anybody that has access to ProPortal (Opta product) because the lineups are there when they’re input on that end.

Pretty much 70% of big teams use Opta so all analysts/coaches of all teams that use that product can access them.

y0ssar1an22

Stephen A Smith wrote: »

I assume the suspension/postponement points are lost in translation? Don’t think CAS have the power to suspend a judgement but not sure on it.

I am pretty sure that UEFA and City can reach a settlement between now and the judgement coming down. I believe that's pretty common in arbitrations for the two parties to be negotiating off the back of how the arbitration is going.

So if it did go very well for City at CAS, and both sides recognised that, I imagine UEFA would be offering them something in the next month to avoid the disaster of CAS siding with them entirely

Re the suspension/postponement, that was a straight copy/past job. Maybe a fluent Spanish speaker can give the real meaning? There must be a few on here!

Both sides, when going to an arbitrator, give an undertaking to adhere to the outcome. I'm not certain if they can 'settle on the steps' as its now out of their hands.
Both can appeal the outcome to the Swiss Supreme Court. I would expect city to do that, as (chances are) it would buy them 1 more year in the champions league.

Stephen A Smith

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Re the suspension/postponement, that was a straight copy/past job. Maybe a fluent Spanish speaker can give the real meaning? There must be a few on here!

Both sides, when going to an arbitrator, give an undertaking to adhere to the outcome. I'm not certain if they can 'settle on the steps' as its now out of their hands.
Both can appeal the outcome to the Swiss Supreme Court. I would expect city to do that, as (chances are) it would buy them 1 more year in the champions league.

Yes I’d imagine you’re correct, my understanding of it would be though that CAS are involved as a mediatory to resolve a dispute where two party’s can’t agree so if they can agree before a ruling from CAS then they would deem it settled?

I would think all 3 party’s would prefer that outcome as it would be viewed that all party’s are satisfied with the result.

y0ssar1an22

Stephen A Smith wrote: »

Yes I’d imagine you’re correct, my understanding of it would be though that CAS are involved as a mediatory to resolve a dispute where two party’s can’t agree so if they can agree before a ruling from CAS then they would deem it settled?

I would think all 3 party’s would prefer that outcome as it would be viewed that all party’s are satisfied with the result.

Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS (per wikipedia).

the only exception to that seems to be for the Olympics.

From my reading/understanding, this is now in the hands of CAS with no option to settle.

irishgeo

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS (per wikipedia).

the only exception to that seems to be for the Olympics.

From my reading/understanding, this is now in the hands of CAS with no option to settle.

CAS is like an appeal court, it can only rule on points of law, in this case UEFA rules. Its not doing any investigation of its own just checking if UEFA applied its rules and punishment fairly.

Guy:Incognito

Ruling due Monday morning.


Presumably we'll get a leak over the weekend?

Mitch Connor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ruling due Monday morning.


Presumably we'll get a leak over the weekend?

Unlikely, massive NDAs on arbitration.

CSF

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Unlikely, massive NDAs on arbitration.

People are leaking at the moment saying they will get off, but every possibility that they don’t know anything.

y0ssar1an22

CSF wrote: »

People are leaking at the moment saying they will get off, but every possibility that they don’t know anything.

the only thing i can find is:

https://www.si.com/soccer/manchestercity/news/first-reports-of-cas-appeal-outcome-man-city-to-be-completely-exonerated

Now, Ian Cheeseman, has claimed that the noise coming from the club is 'sounding like' they have been 'completely exonerated' of any ban or fine.

ian cheeseman sounds like he writes for waterford whispers :pac:

will be very embarrassing and costly for uefa if they are exonerated.

Mitch Connor

CSF wrote: »

People are leaking at the moment saying they will get off, but every possibility that they don’t know anything.

there are people saying what they think will happen based on the legal arguments. No one who will say anything knows the ruling.

Mitch Connor

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the only thing i can find is:

https://www.si.com/soccer/manchestercity/news/first-reports-of-cas-appeal-outcome-man-city-to-be-completely-exonerated

Now, Ian Cheeseman, has claimed that the noise coming from the club is 'sounding like' they have been 'completely exonerated' of any ban or fine.

ian cheeseman sounds like he writes for waterford whispers :pac:

will be very embarrassing and costly for uefa if they are exonerated.

that has seemingly been the stance from City since the case was heard, but they also said there was a case to answer in the first place.

y0ssar1an22

Mitch Connor wrote: »

that has seemingly been the stance from City since the case was heard, but they also said there was a case to answer in the first place.

i know they were staunch from the get go that they were innocent.

they're lying, or uefa ****ed up. i cant see a middle ground here. you dont give a 2 year european ban unless you have done all the due diligence, knowing there would be an appeal regardless.

unless it is deemed that the reason for the investigation in the 1st place was based upon evidence obtained illegally.

Lawro on Today fm earlier reckons every dog on the street knows they are getting a year ban. Ruff justice.

Harry Palmr

I'll be F5ing the feck out of twitter and bluemoon on Monday!

SEPT 23 1989

..

Harry Palmr

Why the sad face?

fyfe79

Said it before but I rather City got a 2 year ban or no ban at all, rather than a bull**** compromise 1 year ban.

A 2 year ban is proper punishment - serious decisions to be made by players and management about the need to leave.

A one year ban and the decision ain't too big - "only a year? ok, I can handle that" - and they get a free run at the PL next season, without the CL distraction. Big advantage.

No ban - they need to balance CL and PL commitments just like the other big clubs. No advantage.

Deadmou5e

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i know they were staunch from the get go that they were innocent.

they're lying, or uefa ****ed up. i cant see a middle ground here. you dont give a 2 year european ban unless you have done all the due diligence, knowing there would be an appeal regardless.

unless it is deemed that the reason for the investigation in the 1st place was based upon evidence obtained illegally.

UEFA offered them a plea deal in December of no ban just a fine if admission of wrong doing was issued. The football club told them stuff it and they’ll take them to CAS.

The charge of ‘failing to co-operate with the investigation’ was always going to be brought against as they said from the start it was a flawed process and they didn’t believe UEFA would impartially look at the case.

UEFA knew from the start where this was going ever since they moved the goal posts on FFP in 2014, this ruling won’t effect FFP in the long term, it’s investigating from 2012-15. The club have provided documentation on accounts since 2015 that have been audited and passed by UEFA’s council.

This whole saga has been brought upon by UEFA due to pressure of the G14 clubs who are threatening a break away league if future large investments aren’t halted to enable the established elite clubs to continue getting their slice of the pie.

The new President of UEFA has even said numerous times on FFP that he intends to reform it so that clubs can spend more than they currently are allowed to on the rules at the moment.

This is a landmark case in football and CAS don’t often go against associations verdicts once they have followed their own rules to the letter of the law, a 2 year ban issued to a club who from the get go said they had ‘irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing’ and judging by reports coming out have proven that to an independent panel should draw a line under the whole thing and people just need to move on from it.

Deadmou5e

fyfe79 wrote: »

Said it before but I rather City got a 2 year ban or no ban at all, rather than a bull**** compromise 1 year ban.

A 2 year ban is proper punishment - serious decisions to be made by players and management about the need to leave.

A one year ban and the decision ain't too big - "only a year? ok, I can handle that" - and they get a free run at the PL next season, without the CL distraction. Big advantage.

No ban - they need to balance CL and PL commitments just like the other big clubs. No advantage.

CAS can’t ‘compromise’ that’s not their job, their job is to judge the verdict giving by UEFA and if it’s right or wrong and if the football club is guilty or innocent.

The only way the ban gets reduced is if UEFA and City came together and agreed on a deal (which they wouldn’t do as Man City turned a deal down off UEFA for no ban just a fine in December if admitted to wrongdoing) CAS prefer it when an association and its members can come to their own agreement before they give theirs, CAS is the last resort because 2 groups can’t agree on something.

CAS say UEFA are correct in they way they’ve approached it and investigated it and believe what the evidence they found is true then its 2 year ban.

CAS say that UEFA didn’t follow their own rules or agree that Man City have evidence of no wrong doing then it’s case dismissed.

Deadmou5e

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ruling due Monday morning.


Presumably we'll get a leak over the weekend?

The Club and UEFA were informed of the verdict this morning so they can prepare their statements to be released when it’s made public and placed on an embargo until Monday morning.

.G.

Theres is evidence of wrongdoing, none of which City have ever denied. All they've complained about is how it was obtained while insisting they've done no wrong but never putting the evidence of how they've done no wrong into the public domain.

So the entire thing boils down to two simple things. Did uefa follow its own rules and processes correctly (unlikely given how they dealt with PSG for the same offence) and is the evidence admissable given how it was obtained. We'll find out on Monday.

ERG89

https://twitter.com/tariqpanja/status/1281639019743510529?s=19

Regardless of the verdict the true story likely won't be told anyway

Deadmou5e

.G. wrote: »

Theres is evidence of wrongdoing, none of which City have ever denied. All they've complained about is how it was obtained while insisting they've done no wrong but never putting the evidence of how they've done no wrong into the public domain.

So the entire thing boils down to two simple things. Did uefa follow its own rules and processes correctly (unlikely given how they delay with PSG for th same offence) and is the evidence admissable given how it was obtained. We'll find out on Monday.

I mean the men running the club are quoted as saying it’s not true what UEFA said about them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.as.com/en/2020/02/19/football/1582128376_263815.amp.html

I can’t understand how you could think there is evidence there to suggest otherwise? Now believing that they have committed wrong doing is very different to saying there is evidence that they have committed wrong doing.

.G.

Deadmou5e wrote: »

I mean the men running the club are quoted as saying it’s not true what UEFA said about them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.as.com/en/2020/02/19/football/1582128376_263815.amp.html

I can’t understand how you could think there is evidence there to suggest otherwise? Now believing that they have committed wrong doing is very different to saying there is evidence that they have committed wrong doing. Illegal obtained information from hacked computers isn’t admirable evidence in most courts of law that I know.

Beacuse I've read the emails from the men running the club that they never thought would see the light of day. They're hardly going to come out and say, yeah sorry about that we've fecked up. Lest not lose sight of the fact that city have never, ever claimed these emails are fake.

And as city fans always fail to notice. This isn't a court of law. It's a court or arbitration for sport..

Deadmou5e

.G. wrote: »

Beacuse I've read the emails from the men running the club that they never thought would see the light of day. They're hardly going to come out and say, yeah sorry about that we've fecked up. Lest not lose sight of the fact that city have never, ever claimed these emails are fake.

And as city fans always fail to notice. This isn't a court of law. It's a court or arbitration for sport..

A court of arbitration for sport that is impartial and one third of the judging committee was selected by UEFA.

I’ll try it again, hacked emails published in a newspaper from a man in police custody of committing crime is not evidence of wrong doing. You can believe the emails as you’re entitled to do and could well be in time proved correct but as of today and this case they are not evidence of wrong doing.

Cookiemunster

Deadmou5e wrote: »

A court of arbitration for sport that is impartial and one third of the judging committee was selected by UEFA.

I’ll try it again, hacked emails published in a newspaper from a man in police custody of committing crime is not evidence of wrong doing. You can believe the emails as you’re entitled to do and could well be in time proved correct but as of today and this case they are not evidence of wrong doing.

They might not be 'admissible in a court of law' evidence, but they are evidence. And UEFA is not a court of law. CAS will have investigated whether or not UEFA broke it's own rules during its investigation, not whether the the emails are legally admissible.

Pauliedragon

6 wrote: »

Lawro on Today fm earlier reckons every dog on the street knows they are getting a year ban. Ruff justice.

I thought it was either 2 years or completely off?

Deadmou5e

Cookiemunster wrote: »

They might not be 'admissible in a court of law' evidence, but they are evidence. And UEFA is not a court of law. CAS will have investigated whether or not UEFA broke it's own rules during its investigation, not whether the the emails are legally admissible.

They are admissible, it’s been in the public domain since the start that they are, that still doesn’t mean it’s evidence of wrong doing if it was it would be an open and shut case.

Guy:Incognito

Deadmou5e wrote: »

if it was it would be an open and shut case.

It was. They were found guilty and got a ban.

Deadmou5e

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It was. They were found guilty and got a ban.

You really need to research the subject before you speak about it. They were offered a deal of no ban if they admitted to wrong doing, which they didn’t take and said they wouldn’t co-operate further with the investigation.

If they were guilty and if it was so obvious then the deal wouldn’t of been on the table and UEFA wouldn’t of cared if they admitted it or not because they would of had clear evidence. So in reply to your comment, no it wasn’t.

Deadmou5e

Deadmou5e wrote: »

UEFA offered them a plea deal in December of no ban just a fine if admission of wrong doing was issued. The football club told them stuff it and they’ll take them to CAS.

Deadmou5e wrote: »

Man City turned a deal down off UEFA for no ban just a fine in December if admitted to wrongdoing

Hadn't heard this, would seem remarkable if it was an open offer.

You have a link?

Deadmou5e

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hadn't heard this, would seem remarkable if it was an open offer.

You have a link?

It Wasn't in the media but the supporters association were told this by the COO, Omar Berrada, at a City Matters meeting just before Xmas. He said they told Ceferin they wouldn't be taking up his offer. I doubt he could have delivered it anyways.

I understand that’s all hear say to you but I can assure you those words were spoken in that meeting. I’d imagine that offer will become public knowledge should they win the appeal but who knows.

Mushy

Deadmou5e wrote: »

It Wasn't in the media but the supporters association were told this by the COO, Omar Berrada, at a City Matters meeting just before Xmas. He said they told Ceferin they wouldn't be taking up his offer. I doubt he could have delivered it anyways.

I understand that’s all hear say to you but I can assure you those words were spoken in that meeting. I’d imagine that offer will become public knowledge should they win the appeal but who knows.

Surely if it was said by the COO, it would be picked then be picked up and commented on in the media?