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

[MillionMilesAway]

That was reported, but why did City appeal knowing it was too early, UEFA investigators bluffed on the evidence and hoped City would take it as a `hick up`, if it was just an appeal, City would have told UEFA they were GOING to appeal any punishment

At a guess, to make a point primarily, protesting the process before judgement.

It might have been enough, and might make UEFA think/negotiate a way out.

It is just a guess though.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I know, but that's the final bow in their arrow, just look at the FIFA reporting. "City got off" is their golden goose we won't be able to shut down. As a club we need nothing less than an exoneration.

That would be ideal.

But we all know that the massed hacks won't mention exoneration, and will instead talk of the charges.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to get complete exoneration here - that would probably require Etihad and others to be involved, and I doubt that will happen.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

However they can't judge something that hasn't been finalised, surely?
Until UEFA decide an outcome, there isn't anything to judge.

They will be judging if the process was flawed.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I think City said their accounts are available.

That's a bit different from 'any wrongdoing' - I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true (at least in part), but that they are also unprovable.

You could be right but Khaldoon's comments were very strong which led me to believe that City have a very strong case. It all hinges on the meaning of the words used relating to the Etihad sponsorship and we don't even know if UEFA even have the emails in their possession and if they do it can only be a tiny fraction of the data available so they can't possibly understand the full context. I wouldn't like to play Poker with Khaldoon! UEFA must be looking for a way out and CAS may help them find it. Certainly the biased press coverage in this country has been incredibly wide of the mark. The UK media still haven't published the full upate on the Pinto case which has been widely covered in the rest of Europe and the USA.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

You could be right but Khaldoon's comments were very strong which led me to believe that City have a very strong case. It all hinges on the meaning of the words used relating to the Etihad sponsorship and we don't even know if UEFA even have the emails in their possession and if they do it can only be a tiny fraction of the data available so they can't possibly understand the full context. I wouldn't like to play Poker with Khaldoon! UEFA must be looking for a way out and CAS may help them find it. Certainly the biased press coverage in this country has been incredibly wide of the mark. The UK media still haven't published the full upate on the Pinto case which has been widely covered in the rest of Europe and the USA.

Yep, agree with that.

I think what KaM said was carefully worded.

 

[KS55]

However they can't judge something that hasn't been finalised, surely?
Until UEFA decide an outcome, there isn't anything to judge.

Yes there is. One ground on which CAS will hear an appeal is unfair process. So the substantive case is yet to be decided but City have appeal on the process.

 

[KS55]

I suspect that City wouldn't leave it at that.

Edit: In fact it wouldn't surprise me if City got to dictate UEFA's grovelling apology.

You're right.. City, if cleared on a technicality, should, and I believe will at the least publish the evidence.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes there is. One ground on which CAS will hear an appeal is unfair process. So the substantive case is yet to be decided but City have appeal on the process.

I would have guessed that the process is challengable, and would expect the club to do so.
However, I'm sure it was suggested at the time that this was not possible prior to completion of the whole process.

This backs that up - the referral from the investigatory committee to the adjudicatory committee (I think I have those the right way round) cannot be appealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...y-cas-appeal-uefa-ffp-referral-likely-to-fail

 

[SiMCFC]

It wouldn't even be so bad if the same hacks ran some stories about our Scouse neighbours and how they hid over 50m in losses that would have also had them kicked out of the competition they love so much... It's just a good old fashioned witch hunt, problem being they picked on people cleverer and much more powerful than they thought.

 

[KS55]

I would have guessed that the process is challengable, and would expect the club to do so.
However, I'm sure it was suggested at the time that this was not possible prior to completion of the whole process.

This backs that up - the referral from the investigatory committee to the adjudicatory committee (I think I have those the right way round) cannot be appealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...y-cas-appeal-uefa-ffp-referral-likely-to-fail

Yes, I read that at the time, but it is wrong. There are several cases where the investigatory procedure has been questioned and CAS made a ruling. CAS would surely have made an announcement by now if they were declining to hear that appeal. City are not appealing the referal per se, but claiming that the procedure was flawed. Maybe a fine point of distinction, but it gives the lawyers a thrill and a fee!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes, I read that at the time, but it is wrong. There are several cases where the investigatory procedure has been questioned and CAS made a ruling. CAS would surely have made an announcement by now if they were declining to hear that appeal. City are not appealing the referal per se, but claiming that the procedure was flawed. Maybe a fine point of distinction, but it gives the lawyers a thrill and a fee!

My head hurts!
Maybe there's something in the UEFA regs that covers what can and can't be done.

Not knowing the CAS cases you mention, maybe it's just the difference between the date a judgement is made ("You're guilty!"), and a delay in announcing punishments ("you're to watch Utd until Lingard scores").

 

[BolinCell]

The problem with all this is a silly rule was introduced that made it illegal for certain teams to spend more money than certain other teams. FFP should of been fought tooth and nail the first time we got done for being anti competition in the European courts.

 

[KS55]

Yes, it is a minefield. If we are appealing against the procedure rather than the referral, the outcome could be that the investigatory committee are ordered by CAS to start again. CONN is no lawyer and has changed from a Clty supporter into a critic. In his report, he says he believes City are appealing against the process, but then concludes, maybe wrongly, that the case he quotes rule this out., but that ruling was that you could not appeal against a referral.
As I say, it is a fine distinction. CAS may yet, of course, rule our appeal out of order finding the distinguishing features not strong enough.

 

[Centurions]

Yes, it is a minefield. If we are appealing against the procedure rather than the referral, the outcome could be that the investigatory committee are ordered by CAS to start again. CONN is no lawyer and has changed from a Clty supporter into a critic. In his report, he says he believes City are appealing against the process, but then concludes, maybe wrongly, that the case he quotes rule this out., but that ruling was that you could not appeal against a referral.
As I say, it is a fine distinction. CAS may yet, of course, rule our appeal out of order finding the distinguishing features not strong enough.

And of course they couldn't 'start again' as there is a five year limit on investigations which is why they appear to have rushed it through on the very final day possible and possibly shot themselves in the foot doing so. Their reasons for doing that are anyones guess at the moment.

 

[petrusha]

Yes there is. One ground on which CAS will hear an appeal is unfair process. So the substantive case is yet to be decided but City have appeal on the process.

Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.

That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.

The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.

IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.

However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.

 

[Centurions]

Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.

That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.

The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.

IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.

However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.

Yes, I'd forgotten that statement from CAS. Basically told UEFA you can go ahead and impose sanctions if you want as it won't affect City's submission to CAS. Not a chance that UEFA would do that I'd have thought though as given our stance so far, we would 100% appeal to CAS on the penalties exacted while CAS were still waiting to decide whether it should have gone ahead or not.

Confused? You will be after this weeks episode of...

 

[KS55]

Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.

That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.

The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.

IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.

However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.

Thank you. Funnily enough, I have just been looking at your post on p685 of this thread. Took me ages to find it...should have just sat here waiting for your input!!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes. City have applied to the CAS seeking a ruling that the decision of UEFA's Investigatory Chamber to refer the matter to the Adjudicatory Chamber should be set aside on the grounds that the referral was procedurally flawed. The CAS has accepted the application and the arbitral process is going forward in the usual way. IIRC (no time to check), the CAS has reportedly clarified that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber can proceed notwithstanding that the arbitral process with respect to the Investigatory Chamber's referral is ongoing.

That will have no bearing on the progress of the CAS case. They'll decide whether the Investigatory Chamber's referral should be struck down owing to procedural flaws when the case reaches the appropriate stage, irrespective of whether or not the Adjudicatory Chamber has by then decided what to do about MCFC.

The established position is that the CAS will usually consider the possibility of appealing against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber to be a sufficient safeguard of the appellant's interests and will thus intervene based on procedural factors only when the ultimate appeal isn't a sufficient safeguard of those interests. And David Conn claimed that City are likely to fail based on a precedent where the CAS declined to strike down an award against AC Milan for procedural reasons, stating that Milan's interests were sufficiently safeguarded by the opportunity to raise the procedural issues in any subsequent appeal against the Adjudicatory Chamber's decision.

IMO, whether this would apply to City may not be as clear-cut as Conn supposes. I've read the full Milan ruling and it relates to a set of facts that differ from City's in a number of material respects. Moreover, in that ruling, the CAS reiterated its willingness to intervene on procedural grounds where necessary. Nonetheless, it's true that the latter situation is going to be an exception rather than the rule.

However, the bottom line is that anyone looking from outside - whether David Conn, me or anyone else - is guessing. The information currently in the public domain isn't adequate to allow us to form a properly considered view.

Marvellous, thanks. I'd not remembered the details of the precedent.

I'm going to take from that (possibly generously) that I was at least partly right. And at least partly wrong!

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I think that this thread should be ‘put to bed’ until such time as anything definitive takes place. Any rumours and crap from from the media should be put on the media thread. By putting it on here we just go round and round in circles.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes, I'd forgotten that statement from CAS. Basically told UEFA you can go ahead and impose sanctions if you want as it won't affect City's submission to CAS. Not a chance that UEFA would do that I'd have thought though as given our stance so far, we would 100% appeal to CAS on the penalties exacted while CAS were still waiting to decide whether it should have gone ahead or not.

Confused? You will be after this weeks episode of...

Nice reference! Not one for the kids, I feel.