Jump to content
uppsala

Man City FFP decision this month.

Recommended Posts

From reading Twitter and Blue Moon I think there's a chance of a journalist ending up in hospital over this. The fanbase, and not 14 year olds in their bedrooms like in most cases, are genuinely insane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't be representative of their fanbase surely?

There must be a forum somewhere where they are saying 'Yeah, it's been great fun but we are massive cheats so, yet know, if this is it then it's been a blast'

Edited by kop205

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hightown Phil said:

From reading Twitter and Blue Moon I think there's a chance of a journalist ending up in hospital over this. The fanbase, and not 14 year olds in their bedrooms like in most cases, are genuinely insane. 

spent a bit of time reading Blue Moon last week. its absolutely bats***. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2020 at 18:12, Ripley said:

Hacking completely the wrong word. They did not disable the access to employees who departed.

Not true. Our staff used the login of an existing member of their staff. 

 

It’s why we paid them a million quid. It was an illegal act and because City are thrashing around at the moment, they might well bring it up again through legal channels and try to cause us problems. It’s no surprise that suddenly the papers are carrying this as a story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2020 at 16:15, Tosh said:

Raoul

So city might focus on the “legality” of the submission on which the ruling rests, essentially arguing that the leaked emails are themselves inadmissible and in using them, the judgement breaks the procedural rules?

I think City's argument is that the emails did not disclose anything that was not already being investigated in 2014 and that the settlement concluded the dispute so that the IC should not have re-opened the investigation in 2018. I think trying to argue that the emails were inadmissible is likely to undermine that argument as it calls into question as to whether the IC were misled in 2014 in agreeing the settlement. The proceedings are not criminal proceedings so the rules on admissibility of illegally obtained evidence are much less strict in their application and therefore highlighting matters that City might have been trying to conceal is a bit of a double edged sword. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DecidedByPoll said:

Not true. Our staff used the login of an existing member of their staff. 

 

It’s why we paid them a million quid. It was an illegal act and because City are thrashing around at the moment, they might well bring it up again through legal channels and try to cause us problems. It’s no surprise that suddenly the papers are carrying this as a story. 

Except that the settlement terms preclude them from doing so. The confidentiality of the settlement has been compromised but it still will bind City and us to its terms and that ought to prevent City from relying upon it. There is also a world of difference between an act done by an employee without the knowledge or consent of his employer and one that is done with the express approval of the employer. Whilst the employer might be responsible in both scenarios if the act is done in the course of employment, it is clearly more serious if the employer instigates the wrongdoing by the employee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they’re using the incident as a distraction against their own mistakes. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RaoulD said:

Except that the settlement terms preclude them from doing so. The confidentiality of the settlement has been compromised but it still will bind City and us to its terms and that ought to prevent City from relying upon it. There is also a world of difference between an act done by an employee without the knowledge or consent of his employer and one that is done with the express approval of the employer. Whilst the employer might be responsible in both scenarios if the act is done in the course of employment, it is clearly more serious if the employer instigates the wrongdoing by the employee. 

We don’t know the terms of the settlement or how legally binding they are. I’d suggest that considering the issue ‘leaked out’ and the Fa/premier league at least had a look at them then the terms might not be as strong as some think. 

Liverpool promoted all the staff involved in the ‘hacking’ and while it would be difficult to prove LFC as an organisation was complicit, it looks likely that no sanction was taken against them - quite the opposite. 

 

I think its partly diversion, but I reckon City want, at the very least, to try to detract from our title win by making something of this. Suggesting that the individuals involved could be investigated legally might be the approach they take.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DecidedByPoll said:

We don’t know the terms of the settlement or how legally binding they are. I’d suggest that considering the issue ‘leaked out’ and the Fa/premier league at least had a look at them then the terms might not be as strong as some think. 

Liverpool promoted all the staff involved in the ‘hacking’ and while it would be difficult to prove LFC as an organisation was complicit, it looks likely that no sanction was taken against them - quite the opposite. 

 

I think its partly diversion, but I reckon City want, at the very least, to try to detract from our title win by making something of this. Suggesting that the individuals involved could be investigated legally might be the approach they take.  

It is the fact of the settlement rather than the terms that prevent either party from relying on the original dispute, the settlement is likely to be legally binding as it is effectively a contract which has now been performed. The FA could still look at the matter as a disciplinary matter as the settlement would not bind a third party such as the FA and it probably only came to light because City's emails were hacked. City could have sought injunctions to prevent the alleged abuse of their confidential information against their former employees and this could have prevented them from joining or working for us for a period of time. The club probably took a commercial decision to settle the dispute with City on terms that allowed City's former employees to work for us regardless of whether City could or could not prove wrongdoing against the club or the individuals concerned. As it took place more than 6 years ago, any claim by City against their former employees or the club would now be statute barred. I think this is a case of a journalist putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 rather than a considered view from someone at City

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, was definitely reported at the time

 

Funny that it's been leaked again now, nothing to do with us close to winning the title of course 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RaoulD said:

The FA could still look at the matter as a disciplinary matter as the settlement would not bind a third party such as the FA and it probably only came to light because City's emails were hacked. 

FA have already said they won't look into it as it's been settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hassony said:

Yeah, was definitely reported at the time

 

Funny that it's been leaked again now, nothing to do with us close to winning the title of course 

Discredit us and distract from them at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, honourablegeorge said:

FA have already said they won't look into it as it's been settled.

They did qualify that by stating that if new evidence came to light they would review that decision but the settlement makes it very difficult for them to get involved without a complaint and evidence being supplied by City (which the settlement precludes them from doing). Essentially, City need to find evidence similar to that which UEFA used against them and then argue the contrary position to that in their FFP appeal. I cannot see that happening!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...