Pep Guardiola has hit back at UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin over comments the European governing body was right to punish the club for financial irregularities.
UEFA banned City from European competition for two years in February 2020 for breaching its Financial Fair Play rules but the ban was later overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
CAS found that some of the charges against City were “not established” and others were time-barred.
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin
Yet Ceferin is adamant his organisation was correct, telling the Daily Telegraph: “We know we were right. We wouldn’t decide if we didn’t think we were right.”
His remarks came as City await a Premier League hearing after being charged with 115 breaches of their domestic competition’s profit and sustainability rules.
City manager Guardiola feels that by speaking out now, Ceferin has not respected the ongoing process.
Guardiola said: “As the lawyer that he is, as president of UEFA, he should wait – and after do whatever he wants.
“He has to respect it and he has to wait. He has a lot of jobs to do at UEFA. A lawyer should respect the procedure. He knows we have the right to defend ourselves.”
Guardiola was speaking at a press conference to preview his side’s FA Cup fourth-round tie at Tottenham on Friday.
Manchester City’s Erling Haaland, right
City will again be without striker Erling Haaland but the Norwegian is now nearing a return after almost two months out with a foot injury.
Guardiola said: “He is on the verge of coming back. For Friday he is not ready but he is close.
“The training camp was good, he trained some sessions. The last few days he’s trained but it is not perfect and we will wait a little bit more.”
John Stones is back in contention after an ankle injury but fellow defender Manuel Akanji remains on the sidelines. Goalkeeper Ederson is also fit after limping off in City’s last game at Newcastle.
City have lost on all five of their previous visits to the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium without even scoring a goal.
Guardiola said: “That is the reality, (and shows) how tough it is for us.
“Of course this is a ‘final’, a knockout game and to go through we have to score goals. Always it is a new opportunity to break it.
“The feeling is most of the times we played really good but the reality is there, no goals, five defeats – so they were much better than us.”
ishti
500
This was some of the observation of the CAS relating to the charges against ManCity by UEFA. Posting it here for everyone. I have highlighted few words. Go through it without being biased. Thanks 🙏🙏 224. The Panel has no reason to believe that Mr Pearce's testimony in this respect was inaccurate and there is NO EVIDENCE from UEFA supporting the allegation that the reference to "His Highness" was in fact to HHSM. Accordingly, the Panel finds that it must be concluded that UEFA FAILED to prove that Leaked Email No. 1 demonstrates that Mr Pearce was entitled to conclude contracts at the behest of ADUG. 225. In any event, the Panel finds that a single email cannot establish a pattern whereby Mr Pearce would consistently arrange alternative sources of funds from HHSM and/or ADUG to contribute to the sponsorship obligations of MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors. Leaked Email No. 1 was also sent 10 YEARS AGO and TWO YEARS BEFORE THE implementation of the CLFFPR. So, even if true, at the time there would have been NOTHING WRONG with channelling equity funding through sponsors. There is NO EVIDENCE that similar arrangements were made after the implementation of the CLFFPR. The Panel finds that INEFFICIENT evidence is available to conclude that Mr Pearce represented ADUG vis-à-vis MCFC's Abu Dhabi-based sponsors with the aim of disguising equity funding as sponsorship contributions. 226. In Leaked Email No. 2, reference is made to a "Mohamed", of which Mr Pearce testified that this was [Mr Z] of ADUG. From this email the inference could be drawn, as UEFA indeed does, that ADUG would be the entity remitting funds to MCFC through the sponsors. There is however NO EVIDENCE on file suggesting that this is also what happened in fact, and it is contradicted by the witness evidence and accounting evidence set out below. 234. There is, in the view of the majority of the Panel, however, NO EVIDENCE to support the conclusion that the payment of the amount of GBP 59,500,000 was funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG, as alleged by UEFA. The majority of the Panel considers the connection between the content of Leaked Email No. 6 and the two payments from Etihad INSUFFICIENT to conclude that the only reasonable explanation therefore is that the payments came from two different sources, i.e. ADUG and Etihad. To suggest that the sequence of the two payments is demonstrative for this would necessarily require finding that both Mr Hogan and Mr Pearce were lying. This is not accepted and the Panel finds that MCFC's explanation is NOT incredible per se. 240. The Panel however notes that there is NO EVIDENCE on file that the arrangement discussed in the schedule attached to Leaked Email No. 2 was ever executed. The information contained in the creditor's ledger predates the payments investigated here, i.e. the payments made by Etihad to MCFC in the seasons 2013/14 and 2015/16.
biscmnouz
111
CEFERIN IS JUST A SHIT HOUSE..MAN CITY TAKES HIM AND UEFA TO THE CAS AND BOX DEM LEFT ..RIGHT AND CENTER.. SO HE STILL BITTER SO EVERY INVESTIGATION CITY UNDER HE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE....BUT THE EPL ARE NO FOOL SO HE NEEDS TO KOOL