UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've read David Conn's piece, which may well have been briefed by UEFA or at any rate rehearses the argument they'll be putting forward. It's Friday night already here in St Petersburg, Russia and, after a hard week, I'm relaxing with a few drinks with a takeaway while the missus is at the theatre. I therefore don't want to spend much time ploughing through legal stuff now (I get more of that than is good for a man in my working week anyway), but I've skim-read the CAS judgment in the AC Milan case against UEFA, which is here for anyone else who wants a look: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_Final_5808.pdf

Am not in a state for rational analysis and in any case, I haven't been a front-line fee-earning lawyer for a long time (I now provide a support function to lawyers) so my analytical skills aren't maybe as sharp as they were. Nonetheless, a few points occur to me:

1. The AC Milan case involved them disputing the merits of the IC decision but not the process. City, as far as we understand, are saying that that the process was flawed and are not asking for the decision itself to be reviewed on the merits. Presumably we will then argue that it falls outside the FFP rule that doesn't allow an appeal against the IC's decision.

2. In clause 100 of the Milan judgment, it's stated that: "the applicable rules do not provide for a separate appeal against the Referral Decision and that such separate appeal [to the CAS] is also not warranted in order to protect the interests of AC Milan" (my emphasis). This implies that CAS would entertain such an appeal if they did consider it warranted in order to protect a club's interests, and no doubt MCFC will be stressing all the evidence we can gather of procedural inadequacies, bias and the like, which we claim make such an appeal necessary to protect our interests in the case at hand.

3. City, I've read in one report, are also challenging the very decision to initiate a new investigation, alleging that there was no basis for the CFCB to do so. Under clauses 1 and 2 of the FFP Rules, it's only a "final decision" of the CFCB that can be appealed, which means the decision of the AC and not the prior decision of the IC to refer it. This doesn't appear to catch a decision to initiate a case.

4. So Conn's article seems to miss points that might make MCFC's case different from that of AC Milan, by which he sets so much store. But the more telling point is that it's really a fool's errand to be trying to evaluate detailed legal arguments that we haven't even seen, and everything I write should be viewed in this context. We really should wait and see what happens.

A couple of points from Stefan from the 93:20 pod, who's a lawyer and now CEO and General Counsel (senior in-house lawyer) at a public company. He's a very switched-on guy who really should be a must follow for Blues on Twitter wanting to follow these issues and is far more worth listening to than I am. Here are two tweets of his from earlier:



I agree with him, though I think the 30% figure is one he's plucked from the air for the sake of an example. It would be bizarre for City to pursue this to CAS at the current stage if the prospects are as bleak as Conn makes out. There's no point in making such a move unless we think we've a decent chance. How great that chance is will remain impossible to assess. We won't know until the CAS judgment.

That's certainly a better view to take than putting any credence in skewed leaked material from UEFA or the idiot ramblings of out-of-their-depth fuckwit sports journalists. Indeed, most of the latter (even those who flatter themselves that they know about the business side of sport) when discussing FFP speak with all the measured authority I imagine Jack Duckworth would show if asked to dissect Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument.
 
Manc in London said:
As I see it, Conn's article is suggesting that we can appeal about procedure but not before a judgement is made.
Click to expand...
David Conn is a big City fan and respected journalist, previously wrote a book about City "Richer than God" he will only tell it as it is, unlike some of the weasels that call themselves Journalist. He has written some excellent football and finance articles over the years, some about City.
 
Bluemeanster said:
David Conn is a big City fan and respected journalist, previously wrote a book about City "Richer than God" he will only tell it as it is, unlike some of the weasels that call themselves Journalist. He has written some excellent football and finance articles over the years, some about City.
Click to expand...
Hmmm
 
petrusha said:
I've read David Conn's piece, which may well have been briefed by UEFA or at any rate rehearses the argument they'll be putting forward. It's Friday night already here in St Petersburg, Russia and, after a hard week, I'm relaxing with a few drinks with a takeaway while the missus is at the theatre. I therefore don't want to spend much time ploughing through legal stuff now (I get more of that than is good for a man in my working week anyway), but I've skim-read the CAS judgment in the AC Milan case against UEFA, which is here for anyone else who wants a look: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_Final_5808.pdf

Am not in a state for rational analysis and in any case, I haven't been a front-line fee-earning lawyer for a long time (I now provide a support function to lawyers) so my analytical skills aren't maybe as sharp as they were. Nonetheless, a few points occur to me:

1. The AC Milan case involved them disputing the merits of the IC decision but not the process. City, as far as we understand, are saying that that the process was flawed and are not asking for the decision itself to be reviewed on the merits. Presumably we will then argue that it falls outside the FFP rule that doesn't allow an appeal against the IC's decision.

2. In clause 100 of the Milan judgment, it's stated that: "the applicable rules do not provide for a separate appeal against the Referral Decision and that such separate appeal [to the CAS] is also not warranted in order to protect the interests of AC Milan" (my emphasis). This implies that CAS would entertain such an appeal if they did consider it warranted in order to protect a club's interests, and no doubt MCFC will be stressing all the evidence we can gather of procedural inadequacies, bias and the like, which we claim make such an appeal necessary to protect our interests in the case at hand.

3. City, I've read in one report, are also challenging the very decision to initiate a new investigation, alleging that there was no basis for the CFCB to do so. Under clauses 1 and 2 of the FFP Rules, it's only a "final decision" of the CFCB that can be appealed, which means the decision of the AC and not the prior decision of the IC to refer it. This doesn't appear to catch a decision to initiate a case.

4. So Conn's article seems to miss points that might make MCFC's case different from that of AC Milan, by which he sets so much store. But the more telling point is that it's really a fool's errand to be trying to evaluate detailed legal arguments that we haven't even seen, and everything I write should be viewed in this context. We really should wait and see what happens.

A couple of points from Stefan from the 93:20 pod, who's a lawyer and now CEO and General Counsel (senior in-house lawyer) at a public company. He's a very switched-on guy who really should be a must follow for Blues on Twitter wanting to follow these issues and is far more worth listening to than I am. Here are two tweets of his from earlier:



I agree with him, though I think the 30% figure is one he's plucked from the air for the sake of an example. It would be bizarre for City to pursue this to CAS at the current stage if the prospects are as bleak as Conn makes out. There's no point in making such a move unless we think we've a decent chance. How great that chance is will remain impossible to assess. We won't know until the CAS judgment.

That's certainly a better view to take than putting any credence in skewed leaked material from UEFA or the idiot ramblings of out-of-their-depth fuckwit sports journalists. Indeed, most of the latter (even those who flatter themselves that they know about the business side of sport) when discussing FFP speak with all the measured authority I imagine Jack Duckworth would show if asked to dissect Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
Enjoy your drinks and takeaway.
 
The statement from CAS includes "An arbitration procedure will now be initiated and will involve an exchange of written submissions between the parties while a panel of CAS arbitrators is convened to hear the appeal"
 
petrusha said:
I've read David Conn's piece, which may well have been briefed by UEFA or at any rate rehearses the argument they'll be putting forward. It's Friday night already here in St Petersburg, Russia and, after a hard week, I'm relaxing with a few drinks with a takeaway while the missus is at the theatre. I therefore don't want to spend much time ploughing through legal stuff now (I get more of that than is good for a man in my working week anyway), but I've skim-read the CAS judgment in the AC Milan case against UEFA, which is here for anyone else who wants a look: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_Final_5808.pdf

Am not in a state for rational analysis and in any case, I haven't been a front-line fee-earning lawyer for a long time (I now provide a support function to lawyers) so my analytical skills aren't maybe as sharp as they were. Nonetheless, a few points occur to me:

1. The AC Milan case involved them disputing the merits of the IC decision but not the process. City, as far as we understand, are saying that that the process was flawed and are not asking for the decision itself to be reviewed on the merits. Presumably we will then argue that it falls outside the FFP rule that doesn't allow an appeal against the IC's decision.

2. In clause 100 of the Milan judgment, it's stated that: "the applicable rules do not provide for a separate appeal against the Referral Decision and that such separate appeal [to the CAS] is also not warranted in order to protect the interests of AC Milan" (my emphasis). This implies that CAS would entertain such an appeal if they did consider it warranted in order to protect a club's interests, and no doubt MCFC will be stressing all the evidence we can gather of procedural inadequacies, bias and the like, which we claim make such an appeal necessary to protect our interests in the case at hand.

3. City, I've read in one report, are also challenging the very decision to initiate a new investigation, alleging that there was no basis for the CFCB to do so. Under clauses 1 and 2 of the FFP Rules, it's only a "final decision" of the CFCB that can be appealed, which means the decision of the AC and not the prior decision of the IC to refer it. This doesn't appear to catch a decision to initiate a case.

4. So Conn's article seems to miss points that might make MCFC's case different from that of AC Milan, by which he sets so much store. But the more telling point is that it's really a fool's errand to be trying to evaluate detailed legal arguments that we haven't even seen, and everything I write should be viewed in this context. We really should wait and see what happens.

A couple of points from Stefan from the 93:20 pod, who's a lawyer and now CEO and General Counsel (senior in-house lawyer) at a public company. He's a very switched-on guy who really should be a must follow for Blues on Twitter wanting to follow these issues and is far more worth listening to than I am. Here are two tweets of his from earlier:



I agree with him, though I think the 30% figure is one he's plucked from the air for the sake of an example. It would be bizarre for City to pursue this to CAS at the current stage if the prospects are as bleak as Conn makes out. There's no point in making such a move unless we think we've a decent chance. How great that chance is will remain impossible to assess. We won't know until the CAS judgment.

That's certainly a better view to take than putting any credence in skewed leaked material from UEFA or the idiot ramblings of out-of-their-depth fuckwit sports journalists. Indeed, most of the latter (even those who flatter themselves that they know about the business side of sport) when discussing FFP speak with all the measured authority I imagine Jack Duckworth would show if asked to dissect Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to go through it, enjoy your evening.
 
blue oli said:
Seems like a simple matter to me, The European body need to be seen to do something to maintain a weak regulation that is already broken.

In order to do so they have rushed the process and fallen foul potentially of required standards.

We go to CAS win, we are clean and carry on and UEFA get to claim that they were enforcing FFP but we (like PSG) got off on a technicality - but they will be keeping a close eye on us in future.

Both sides win ! We see this sort of thing in the financial sector every year.

Stand down - nothing to see here
Click to expand...
This is what I would expect too.
MillionMilesAway said:
Yes, which is why I doubt it's a committee member.

I can see it being in UEFA's interest to have the whole thing collapse; it's a pretty high-risk strategy though!
Click to expand...
I suspect this may be part of our plan - very much Art of War stuff.

If we've readied our strategy to provide a large number of highly probable win opportunities if/as things progress, then it may well benefit us to let the opposition recognise both the strength of our position (if not the actual strategy itself), plus the differences in scale of impact should the win occur at various future points (the further progressed, the higher the fallout) versus the relatively minor impact should things be 'resolved' earlier.

All that's left then is to leave an obvious 'out' that we would prefer them to take at each stage, and assuming the oppo decision makers have anything about them they will engineer it to take what's on offer.

Done well, the options are we win and regular service is resumed for all (which is currently us dominating) or we win & destroy them.

Bottom line - turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and I think our opening gambit clearly provides the first such 'out' for UEFA without too muvh light beong shone in anyone's particular direction.
 
Bluemeanster said:
David Conn is a big City fan and respected journalist, previously wrote a book about City "Richer than God" he will only tell it as it is, unlike some of the weasels that call themselves Journalist. He has written some excellent football and finance articles over the years, some about City.
Click to expand...

Conn is nominally a City fan but he seems to loathe our owner and the direction that the club is travelling in. His book Richer Than God was a rehash of things already in the public domain rather than offering any new insights and worst of all he is a champion arse licker of FCUM.
 
Bluemeanster said:
He is i have had the opportunity to meet and speak with him and hes City through and through, clever bloke unlke some of the people that call themselves Journalists.
Read some of his articles, books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Conn
Click to expand...

I don’t doubt which club he supports. But he has naive and outdated view of our current ownership and the reality of football in the modern era. City as a club of 40 or 50 years ago I’m sure he loves to bits. I’m not saying blues can’t be critical of their own club but he does it in a repeated and sustained fashion, and is a constant source of ammo for our club’s critics.

In short, clever or not, he’s not for me.
 
Ardwick Green Blue said:
Conn is nominally a City fan but he seems to loathe our owner and the direction that the club is travelling in. His book Richer Than God was a rehash of things already in the public domain rather than offering any new insights and worst of all he is a champion arse licker of FCUM.
Click to expand...
A modern day Colin Shindler.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top