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

Deadmou5e

Mushy wrote: »

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

Have you read any positive pieces about the case on City's behalf besides Martin Samuel in the Mail?

If it was true what the COO said then it would paint the club in a very different light to neutrals with little understanding of the case and unfortunately that’s not the narrative they are looking to publish.

There was actually a journalist on TalkSPORT weds evening and he was asked on his prediction for the outcome of the case and said ‘unfortunately it looks like City could win the appeal’ but provided no evidence why it would be unfortunate for them to be proved innocent. It’s all very weird with the media reporting of it.

Mushy

Deadmou5e wrote: »

Have you read any positive pieces about the case on City's behalf besides Martin Samuel in the Mail?

If it was true what the COO said then it would paint the club in a very different light to neutrals with little understanding of the case and unfortunately that’s not the narrative they are looking to publish.

There was actually a journalist on TalkSPORT weds evening and he was asked on his prediction for the outcome of the case and said ‘unfortunately it looks like City could win the appeal’ but provided no evidence why it would be unfortunate for them to be proved innocent. It’s all very weird with the media reporting of it.

Well did Martin Samuel write anything about it then, if hes to be the only positive one from a City perspective? I haven't read anything of his, it's the Mail so would far rather never support them

Deadmou5e

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.

Surely something like that, which effectively ends the matter as it amounts to a concession by UEFA that they got it wrong, would not only be carried by every media outlet but also be in every statement by Man City on the issue?

Liam O

When Martin Samuel is your champion you know something is wrong.

Agent Coulson

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely something like that, which effectively ends the matter as it amounts to a concession by UEFA that they got it wrong, would not only be carried by every media outlet but also be in every statement by Man City on the issue?

That really sounds like something from the tin foil hat brigade over on the Blue Moon forum would say to reassure themselves everything is a conspiracy against them and the owners would only tell them and not the world media that they refused UEFA's offers.

Deadmou5e

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.

There was another poster here a while back, gstack, that offered similar opinions about ‘knowing’ stuff and ‘assured’ us of stuff too.

‘Take it to the bank’ was another one he liked. Very confident but knew nothing, for sure, really.

I think you’ll need to be careful how you phrase stuff if you want to be taken seriously because he certainly wasn’t.

Deadmou5e

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There was another poster here a while back, gstack, that offered similar opinions about ‘knowing’ stuff and ‘assured’ us of stuff too.

‘Take it to the bank’ was another one he liked. Very confident but knew nothing, for sure, really.

I think you’ll need to be careful how you phrase stuff if you want to be taken seriously because he certainly wasn’t.

Look I can understand it might be hard to believe what I said but I was told that from several people in that fan event that the COO said that. They have no reason to lie about it. Wether the COO is telling the truth about it is another matter but with all these things you can only take them at face value. The only thing I’ve assured you about on here about anything was what the COO said in his speech at that event.

The ban could be upheld and I’m sure what I said will get multiple replies on here laughing and calling it BS etc and fair enough, but if an exoneration comes tomorrow morning (which I fully expect is what is going to happen) then people need to be in acceptance that the club who were confident from the start mightn’t be as murky as some would like you to believe and have portrayed them to be.

Might be best for me to leave this discussion until tomorrow morning. Take care folks.

StringerBell

Lets for argument sake say that the COO said that at some fan event.

Does that automatically make it true?

Knowing how these things work and that the truth of everything may never see the light of day it is pretty plausible that he could have simply been lying at the fan event.

City are going to CAS against uefa, it's not some private negotiation thing between them, there is literally no reason to conceal that information if it was true.

On the balance of probabilities I know which is more likely anyway, but sure who knows.

Deadmou5e

StringerBell wrote: »

Lets for argument sake say that the COO said that at some fan event.

Does that automatically make it true?

I made that point, but do you automatically dismiss it either? There is every chance Ceferin wouldn’t of been able to follow through with the promise, he would of had to have been backed by the UEFA council, it’s entirely possible that what the COO said was only the tip of the iceberg and since it was said in December 2 months before the ban was handed out all evidence the club had for CAS could have been put under an embargo by the clubs lawyers.

I’m sure we’ll find it all out during this week, One way or the other if the COO was correct with his story.

Agent Coulson

Any idea at what time the announcement is due?

Deadmou5e

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Any idea at what time the announcement is due?

9:30am BST

Fitz*

I presume that Man City will be told privately before that?

Agent Coulson

FitzShane wrote: »

I presume that Man City will be told privately before that?

UEFA and City will already have been to told probably last Friday so they can get there press releases ready to go.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

I'd assume they won't get any ban.

Deadmou5e

FitzShane wrote: »

I presume that Man City will be told privately before that?

They’ve been briefed. Speaks volumes there wasn’t been a single leak yet. UEFA are well known for leaking information. Makes me think City have have been successful but time will tell.

They would’ve both been on an embargo from Friday until tomorrow when it was made public anyway but UEFA would surely have let the cat slip out of the bag to one of them had they been backed by CAS.

Weepsie

Deadmou5e wrote: »

They’ve been briefed. Speaks volumes there wasn’t been a single leak yet. UEFA are well known for leaking information. Makes me think City have have been successful but time will tell.

They would’ve both been on an embargo from Friday until tomorrow when it was made public anyway but UEFA would surely have let the cat slip out of the bag to one of them had they been backed by CAS.

That's more tinfoil type nonsense. City would be doing backflips and cartwheels and happily leaking it as much as uefa would.

Considering some of the complaints are about leaks in the first place, neither party would be that stupid you'd think

Non solum non ambulabit

Deadmou5e wrote: »

They’ve been briefed. Speaks volumes there wasn’t been a single leak yet. UEFA are well known for leaking information. Makes me think City have have been successful but time will tell.

They would’ve both been on an embargo from Friday until tomorrow when it was made public anyway but UEFA would surely have let the cat slip out of the bag to one of them had they been backed by CAS.

CAS apparently don't brief.



https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1281651489035845633?s=19

Deadmou5e

Non solum non ambulabit wrote: »

CAS apparently don't brief.



https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1281651489035845633?s=19

That line has been used by all the media. It sounds like an agreed statement from City and UEFA to try to prevent the result being all over the weekend media. It's an attempt to keep the hounds at bay. I am sure both parties will have been verbally briefed on the decision Friday at the latest. They probably won't receive the "official" result until later when it is sent to them digitally, That allows both parties to deny they have received the official verdict (even though they know it)

I’d be flabbergasted if the directors of City are going to bed tonight waiting for the outcome like everyone else. I wouldn’t take much notice of Miguel myself but maybe he is right, this time.

Deadmou5e

Weepsie wrote: »

That's more tinfoil type nonsense. City would be doing backflips and cartwheels and happily leaking it as much as uefa would.

Considering some of the complaints are about leaks in the first place, neither party would be that stupid you'd think

‘Tinfoil type nonsense’

Ok sir, whatever is your pleasure. It’s perfectly plausible what I have said.

irishgeo

Deadmou5e wrote: »

That line has been used by all the media. It sounds like an agreed statement from City and UEFA to try to prevent the result being all over the weekend media. It's an attempt to keep the hounds at bay. I am sure both parties will have been verbally briefed on the decision Friday at the latest. They probably won't receive the "official" result until later when it is sent to them digitally, That allows both parties to deny they have received the official verdict (even though they know it)

I’d be flabbergasted if the directors of City are going to bed tonight waiting for the outcome like everyone else. I wouldn’t take much notice of Miguel myself but maybe he is right, this time.

they will be told before its made public, a few hours maybe not Friday.

ArmaniJeanss

Deadmou5e wrote: »

They’ve been briefed. Speaks volumes there wasn’t been a single leak yet. UEFA are well known for leaking information. Makes me think City have have been successful but time will tell.

They would’ve both been on an embargo from Friday until tomorrow when it was made public anyway but UEFA would surely have let the cat slip out of the bag to one of them had they been backed by CAS.

You probably overestimate how important it is to UEFA - I doubt they consider it big enough either way to go on a major leaking spurge.
It's not their first rodeo, they've won and lost many cases at CAS, the EU commission and the Swiss Supreme Court. Win or lose this one there'll still be 4 English clubs in a lucrative 32 team Champions League next season. No particular downside for them other than a dose of embarrassment which will be forgotten about by the non-English football world in about 48 hours.

It's altogether more serious from a City point of view.

Deadmou5e

irishgeo wrote: »

they will be told before its made public, a few hours maybe not Friday.

The decision is at 9:30am what time do you suggest they are made aware of it? Both City are UEFA will have a statement released by 9:35am now of course they could have a good and bad statement both ready to go now as we speak but my guess is that wouldn’t happen, they have to be briefed the verdict so the lawyers can go over the final draft, make sure names, evidence, times and meetings etc are all correct, they need time to read over them drafts and then both would have to sign off on them I’d assume? That’s just a guess though.

Deadmou5e

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You probably overestimate how important it is to UEFA - I doubt they consider it big enough either way to go on a major leaking spurge.
It's not their first rodeo, they've won and lost many cases at CAS, the EU commission and the Swiss Supreme Court. Win or lose this one there'll still be 4 English clubs in a lucrative 32 team Champions League next season. No particular downside for them other than a dose of embarrassment which will be forgotten about by the non-English football world in about 48 hours.

It's altogether more serious from a City point of view.

In the short to medium term I agree it’s much more serious for City, in the long term is a lot more serious for UEFA, one of the main reasons being they have been urged and pushed to charge City by the G14 clubs, a City win at CAS pushes the European Super League a lot closer to reality.

Fitz*

irishgeo wrote: »

they will be told before its made public, a few hours maybe not Friday.

That's what I was thinking too.

If I remember correctly, when the original ruling was made, City were only told very soon before the official public announcement and were annoyed that they did not have time to prepare their statement and response etc.

Plasandrunt

If the ban is upheld or even downgraded to a year could the FA possibly charge them too? maybe face some sanctions domestically aswell as in Europe.

Deadmou5e

Plasandrunt wrote: »

If the ban is upheld or even downgraded to a year could the FA possibly charge them too? maybe face some sanctions domestically aswell as in Europe.

Yes, even though the Premier Leagues FFP is slightly different from UEFA’s they will be watching with interest.

Interestingly though Der Spiegel alleged that City paid Emeka Obasi £200,000 when they signed Jadon Sancho from Watford in March 2015.

The FA has found no evidence to support claims that Manchester City made a banned payment to Jadon Sancho’s agent when they opened their own investigation into it. 2 separate issues of course but still relevant.

Plasandrunt

I've never really hated City up until this season despite pipping us to the title in 2014 and last season and basically replacing us as top 4 mainstays for a few seasons.

However this season the whole spoiled brat woe is me mentality has really grated me. Emanating from the top of all the way down to their absolutely rotten fanbase. Would be fantastic if they got punished

Deadmou5e

Plasandrunt wrote: »

I've never really hated City up until this season despite pipping us to the title in 2014 and last season and basically replacing us as top 4 mainstays for a few seasons.

However this season the whole spoiled brat woe is me mentality has really grated me. Emanating from the top of all the way down to their absolutely rotten fanbase. Would be fantastic if they got punished

Can be said for a lot of clubs and one close to your home too.

Plasandrunt

yeah but none of those other clubs have been blatantly cheating to achieve all their success

Deadmou5e

Plasandrunt wrote: »

yeah but none of those other clubs have been blatantly cheating to achieve all their success

There is an objective argument to be made against you there but it won’t be done by me tonight anyways

Plasandrunt

Deadmou5e wrote: »

There is an objective argument to be made against you there but it won’t be done by me tonight anyways

Is there really though?

gimli2112

Plasandrunt wrote: »

I've never really hated City up until this season despite pipping us to the title in 2014 and last season and basically replacing us as top 4 mainstays for a few seasons.

However this season the whole spoiled brat woe is me mentality has really grated me. Emanating from the top of all the way down to their absolutely rotten fanbase. Would be fantastic if they got punished

honestly I barely knew City existed and then we knocked them out of Europe and it exploded. Like Chelsea in 2005. They think they're entitled, they meet us and realise they're wrong

Deadmou5e

gimli2112 wrote: »

honestly I barely knew City existed and then we knocked them out of Europe and it exploded. Like Chelsea in 2005. They think they're entitled, they meet us and realise they're wrong

The last sentence is surely a show of entitlement from you though. Surely? Has to be considered it

DVDM93

the amount of flute sucked & brown envelopes passed will decide the outcome of tomorrow imo.

City cheated & should be punished accordingly, often that is not how it turns out unfortunately for the reasons listed above.

only time will tell now at this stage.

Deadmou5e

DVDM93 wrote: »

the amount of flute sucked & brown envelopes passed will decide the outcome of tomorrow imo.

City cheated & should be punished accordingly, often that is not how it turns out unfortunately for the reasons listed above.

only time will tell now at this stage.

You seriously cannot be questioning the integrity of CAS? Dear god what a cesspit of a thread this will turn into tomorrow if CAS rule in the clubs favour if this is the mindset of posters.

Plasandrunt

the only conceivable way that City have got out of this ban is by paying off the top brass.

martingriff

Deadmou5e wrote: »

You seriously cannot be questioning the integrity of CAS? Dear god what a cesspit of a thread this will turn into tomorrow if CAS rule in the clubs favour if this is the mindset of posters.

It will happen either way they rule

Deadmou5e

Plasandrunt wrote: »

the only conceivable way that City have got out of this ban is by paying off the top brass.

The top brass, you mean the likes of David Gill ex-Manchester United CEO and current UEFA Executive committee member, the committee that issued the ban in the first place. I’m sure he’s friends and old work mates would love that.

Please at least make a valid argument for your hatred.

Plasandrunt

Please make a valid argument why any reason that this ban should be potentially overturned?

Deadmou5e

Plasandrunt wrote: »

Please make a valid argument why any reason that this ban should be potentially overturned?

Ffs! Seriously? How about if they provide valid proof of no wrong doing and an independent jury agrees with them and disagrees with a premeditated leaked verdict from a known corrupt organisation before an investigation into them had begun.

Would that be a valid enough argument?

Fitz*

Pep Guardiola on the CAS decision: “It was an issue from a long time ago. Maybe 90% of the people who are on the pitch or the backroom staff were not there. But we are going to see and respect the decisions".

Is he trying to distance himself from what the club have done previous to him arriving?

SteM

Deadmou5e wrote: »

The top brass, you mean the likes of David Gill ex-Manchester United CEO and current UEFA Executive committee member, the committee that issued the ban in the first place. I’m sure he’s friends and old work mates would love that.

Please at least make a valid argument for your hatred.

I don't understand, how would paying off anyone in UEFA change the outcome of a decision by CAS?

Deadmou5e

SteM wrote: »

I don't understand, how would paying off anyone in UEFA change the outcome of a decision by CAS?

I assume that’s what he meant because he surely cannot be talking about CAS. Their reputation presides itself, they have never went against an organisations punishment once they have acted to the letter of the law in their own rules.

Deadmou5e

FitzShane wrote: »

Pep Guardiola on the CAS decision: “It was an issue from a long time ago. Maybe 90% of the people who are on the pitch or the backroom staff were not there. But we are going to see and respect the decisions".

Is he trying to distance himself from what the club have done previous to him arriving?

Possibly or it might be lost in translation of him trying to make a point that he feels him and the players shouldn’t be punished regardless of the outcome because they weren’t there.

Cookiemunster

Deadmou5e wrote: »

Ffs! Seriously? How about if they provide valid proof of no wrong doing and an independent jury agrees with them and disagrees with a premeditated leaked verdict from a known corrupt organisation before an investigation into them had begun.

Would that be a valid enough argument?

You keep looking for legal proof and talking about courts. But this is not a legal case and CAS is not a court of law. UEFAs Club Financial Control Body has said that City have broken UEFA rules. CAS is deciding if this is correct. None of this is a legal matter requiring proof beyond doubt.

dundalkfc10

gimli2112 wrote: »

honestly I barely knew City existed and then we knocked them out of Europe and it exploded. Like Chelsea in 2005. They think they're entitled, they meet us and realise they're wrong

That's biggest load of ****e I've read on here in a while.

Deadmou5e

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You keep looking for legal proof and talking about courts. But this is not a legal case and CAS is not a court of law. UEFAs Club Financial Control Body has said that City have broken UEFA rules. CAS is deciding if this is correct. None of this is a legal matter requiring proof beyond doubt.

I think you are mistaken, UEFA said they have charged City with inflating their sponsorship based on evidence they found in City’s own documents they submitted in the investigation, the club are denying the allegations, CAS will need to see proof of this in order to uphold the ban or otherwise it’ll be overturned.

Also City have stated they have ‘irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing’ was basically the first line of their statement after the appeal to CAS was lodged.

Plasandrunt

Deadmou5e wrote: »

Ffs! Seriously? How about if they provide valid proof of no wrong doing and an independent jury agrees with them and disagrees with a premeditated leaked verdict from a known corrupt organisation before an investigation into them had begun.

Would that be a valid enough argument?

But City aren't really fighting against the allegations in the emails, their main defense is that the emails were obtained illegally which is basically an admission of guilt.

Deadmou5e

Plasandrunt wrote: »

But City aren't really fighting against the allegations in the emails, their main defense is that the emails were obtained illegally which is basically an admission of guilt.

City said at the time the original magazine article was published that they would not be commenting and that the attempt to damage their reputation was "organised and clear"

Man City repeated the statement they issued, defending their position and referring to "out of context materials purportedly hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel and associated people"

On 7th March 2019, Man City issued a club statement welcoming UEFA investigation into ‘entirely false’ FFP allegations.

If that is an admission of guilt to you and you are a judge then I would absolutely hate to stand in front of you on any charges.

Cookiemunster

Deadmou5e wrote: »

I think you are mistaken, UEFA said they have charged City with inflating their sponsorship based on evidence they found in City’s own documents they submitted in the investigation, the club are denying the allegations, CAS will need to see proof of this in order to uphold the ban or otherwise it’ll be overturned.

Also City have stated they have ‘irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing’ was basically the first line of their statement after the appeal to CAS was lodged.

Again there's a huge difference between the burden of proof in a legal case and in an internal UEFA investigation. CAS have to decide if they've broken UEFA rules, not whether the evidence is admissible, as you have previously claimed.