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

[JGL07]

That is complete bullshit though, as Tony Evans would know if he were a remotely competent reporter that Premier League FFP and UEFA FFP are completely different regulations with very different standards.

The Premier League didn't even introduce FFP rules until after this date.

 

[squirtyflower]

What doesn't look good? That's a speculative (and probably hopeful) piece by an Arsenal fan. It's not based on new information or even internal leaks.

Evans is a scouser, with the most obvious and grating Scouse accent you have ever heard.
Oh and he’s a **** that has hated City since before Mancini

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

CAS has, I understand, previously admitted documents that were obtained in a dubious manner. So how the docs were obtained isn’t quite the gotcha we would like.

What’s interesting at the moment is the delay in the Adjudicatory Chamber decision. If they are to simply review or endorse the lower chamber decision I cannot understand from a legal standpoint why this would be delayed.

The submissions to CAS do suggest that UEFA were in a rush to bring matters forward. That may mean they failed to fully investigate the matter in the time allowed. Certainly the scope document only coming to light late is an issue.


It may be that UEFA is in a little bit of difficulty. Firstly if it bans us and we appeal we have good grounds to appeal and possibly pursue a defamation claim. Alternatively if the Adjudicatory Chamber doesn’t impose punishment there is still a potential defamation claim.

UEFA are shitting it, hence Ceferin attending our last 2 CL games and presumably attempting to convince City to accept some small punishment such as a fine.

They must be petrified of actually banning us, knowing we will go nuclear on them

Expect to see Ceferin in Madrid.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

A penny for UEFA's thoughts when we turned up with an eight-strong legal team and they had a miserly two?

The fact they asked for their 60k costs to be reimbursed, suggests the coffers don't run too deep!

Reimbursed by whom, cas or City?

 

[M18CTID]

Evans is a scouser, with the most obvious and grating Scouse accent you have ever heard.
Oh and he’s a **** that has hated City since before Mancini

I find him good on some articles such as the one a few months ago about the Suarez/Evra affair in which he didn't pull any punches about his fellow Liverpool fans defending Suarez, but on the topic of City and FFP even if you put aside his general bitterness, he gets so many things wrong it's untrue.

 

[Gordyola]

Reading article in the Independent today. Doesn't look good. Any decision taken against us would be mirrored by Premiership.

Is that the Tony Evans article. Seems a bit more like wishful thinking than anything else. I wonder which club would benefit most from the points deduction he thinks is the obvious option. The other thing he (and a few others) tends to do that I don't like is repeat this claim that if we win, it's the end of financial controls. Almost as if we need to lose for the good of the game.

Not only that but Premier League FFP didn't exist in the reporting period in question.

From BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29361839
The Premier League has brought in its own form of financial regulation which is not as stringent as Uefa's FFP.

Clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m across the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons (as with FFP, investment in infrastructure and youth development is exempt).

Any club that posts losses in excess of that figure could face severe penalties, including a points deduction.

A loss between £15m and £105m has to be guaranteed by club owners.

The league has also introduced a short-term cost control measure in which clubs are restricted in the amount of increased PL central funds that can be used to improve player wages.

The increase in wages from the fund was limited to £4m in 2013-14, £8m in 2014-15 and £12m in 2015-16 (wages can be increased from clubs' own commercial revenue).

The wages increase criteria was ditched a few season ago

Evans is talking shite or providing fake news

 

[squirtyflower]

I find him good on some articles such as the one a few months ago about the Suarez/Evra affair in which he didn't pull any punches about his fellow Liverpool fans defending Suarez, but on the topic of City and FFP even if you put aside his general bitterness, he gets so many things wrong it's untrue.

He used to be on the Times podcast and he was generally forthright in his hatred for everything Manchester City. Constantly moaning about how poor we were, even when winning the league in 2012 and again in 2014. I was glad he got the heave-ho but then up popped Alison ‘fucking’ Rudd and her whiny annoying voice interrupting any decent discussion so I stopped listening

 

[squirtyflower]

From BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29361839
The Premier League has brought in its own form of financial regulation which is not as stringent as Uefa's FFP.

Clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m across the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons (as with FFP, investment in infrastructure and youth development is exempt).

Any club that posts losses in excess of that figure could face severe penalties, including a points deduction.

A loss between £15m and £105m has to be guaranteed by club owners.

The league has also introduced a short-term cost control measure in which clubs are restricted in the amount of increased PL central funds that can be used to improve player wages.

The increase in wages from the fund was limited to £4m in 2013-14, £8m in 2014-15 and £12m in 2015-16 (wages can be increased from clubs' own commercial revenue).

The wages increase criteria was ditched a few season ago

Evans is talking shite or providing fake news

Especially as some of the rules have now been scrapped/amended to help United out of their current hole

 

[Jacko1956]

“Nouveau riche” is so 2009.

Ha haTony Evan's who is a Liverpool fan how strange, I remember this font all knowledge going public back in last September on Talkshite that it was his understanding that a verdict was due any day and that City would get a ban. Some six months later the goal posts have changed some what still no verdict the Portuguese mole has lost his appeal and will face trial CAS have clearly intermated that UEFA's investigation was less than confidential and had denied certain evidence. UEFA's case weakens by the day and if this was to go to the courts could clearly have damaging financial implications for them.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I haven't read the documents made public by CAS and I'm relying on what I've read on here. It was clear that City's appeal to CAS was concerned solely with the procedures followed by UEFA and that our appeal was declared inadmissible: it was not rejected. The CAS documents were quite explicit that City had a right to appeal on the same grounds - and on additional grounds - if we did not accept the verdict of the adjudicatory commission. I find it interesting, therefore, that CAS detailed its own clear concerns about the procedure followed and these concerns centre around such basic rights of a defendant that they must give UEFA real cause for concern. What is intriguing is that CAS urges UEFA to pay attention to these concerns in reaching a verdict. I would appreciate enlightenment on how exactly UEFA can do this. It surely may satisfy CAS by admitting that the process left a lot to be desired (the failure to allow City to present evidence, the attitude of Leterme, the withholding of documents, not to mention the conflict of interest of certain members of the IC) but we're still banning City. If City can only be banned after a fair hearing then surely that horse has bolted. That there has been no verdict yet suggests to me that UEFA are in some considerable confusion rather than that "a showdown is inevitable". City's inadmissible appeal on procedural grounds would seem to have caused this confusion before the really knotty questions of the provenance and context of the evidence and whether any violation of FFP has actually been perpetrated - and beyond that the issue of whether the regulations are actually lawful at all - are even brought into play. The documents seem to be rather more positive for City than UEFA. And all this from an appeal which is not admissible at this stage!

 

[Bandofblues]

Certainly the scope document only coming to light late is an issue.

A scope document should come at the start of the investigation. It sets the parameters, the scope of what the investigation should concern itself with.
The fact that the scope document was only provided after the matter had ben passed to the adjudicatory chamber tells a story:

UEFA investigatory chamber: "have you seen these leaked emails?, fucking hell we might have something here, lets open an investigation"
UEFA teaboy: "you realise those were stolen, are out of context and oh the statute limitations runs out any day now?"
UEFA investigatory chamber: "shit, shit, shit, kick it upstairs now !, oh and don't forget to gob off to your mates in the press, we will have these bastards"
City: "errm, what are you investigating us about exactly?"
UEFA investigatory chamber: ………
City: "errm, what are you investigating us about exactly?"
City: "and would you please respect your own confidentiality rules whilst you decide?"
UEFA adjudicatory chamber (to the investigatory chamber): "you dickheads, where is the investigation report?"
UEFA investigatory chamber: ………
UEFA investigatory chamber: "here have our scope document instead"
City: "errm that's not due process"
UEFA adjudicatory chamber: "never mind that, will you just pay a fine/accept a ban please?"
City: "NO, fuck off !"
City: "and would you PLEASE respect your own confidentiality rules?"
UEFA adjudicatory chamber: "never, how dare you accuse.... "
City: > CAS
CAS: "UEFA you are a bunch of fucking clowns, go away and think about this properly"
UEFA: "Shit, shit shit - what do we do now ?"
UEFA: "errmmm"
UEFA: "errmmm, leak some other shit"
UEFA: "errmmm"
UEFA: "errmmm"
UEFA: "errmmm"

 

[Withnail]

Evans is a scouser, with the most obvious and grating Scouse accent you have ever heard.
Oh and he’s a **** that has hated City since before Mancini

When it comes to City, Evans does n't hide his contempt for the club. Grade A w@nker.

 

[KS55]

A scope document should come at the start of the investigation. It sets the parameters, the scope of what the investigation should concern itself with.
The fact that the scope document was only provided after the matter had ben passed to the adjudicatory chamber tells a story:

UEFA investigatory chamber: "have you seen these leaked emails?, fucking hell we might have something here, lets open an investigation"
UEFA teaboy: "you realise those were stolen, are out of context and oh the statute limitations runs out any day now?"
UEFA investigatory chamber: "shit, shit, shit, kick it upstairs now !, oh and don't forget to gob off to your mates in the press, we will have these bastards"
City: "errm, what are you investigating us about exactly?"
UEFA investigatory chamber: ………
City: "errm, what are you investigating us about exactly?"
City: "and would you please respect your own confidentiality rules whilst you decide?"
UEFA adjudicatory chamber (to the investigatory chamber): "you dickheads, where is the investigation report?"
UEFA investigatory chamber: ………
UEFA investigatory chamber: "here have our scope document instead"
City: "errm that's not due process"
UEFA adjudicatory chamber: "never mind that, will you just pay a fine/accept a ban please?"
City: "NO, fuck off !"
City: "and would you PLEASE respect your own confidentiality rules?"
UEFA adjudicatory chamber: "never, how dare you accuse.... "
City: > CAS
CAS: "UEFA you are a bunch of fucking clowns, go away and think about this properly"
UEFA: "Shit, shit shit - what do we do now ?"
UEFA: "errmmm"
UEFA: "errmmm, leak some other shit"
UEFA: "errmmm"
UEFA: "errmmm"
UEFA: "errmmm"

I asked the question some time back but got no response: have the external auditors made a written report to Uefa and have City received a copy thereof?
@tolmie's hairdoo , any clue?

 

[Centurions]

Think there's a Tony Evans that writes for untold Arsenal as well.

Just had a quick Google, it's Tony Attwood I was thinking of.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Think there's a Tony Evans that writes for untold Arsenal as well.

You Apologist for @Centurions!

Even the Arsenal fan seems to have toned it down now.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Alex Cora was involved in sign stealing at Houston Astros in 2017 but when he was at Boston Red Sox he (allegedly) did it again in their 2018 World Series win. The MLB's investigation into the Red Sox continues.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...ams-press-conference-after-alex-coras-firing/

Cheers for the amendment.

 

[nmc]

The truly big cases are only ever won by someone who has the motivation and deeper pockets to keep it in litigation.

Goodness knows what it costs to keep a QC on retainer, never mind all the other expertise from separate firms and abroad?

I suspect a letter costs more than £40 an hour!

This has to be a consideration for UEFA, when also factoring in their own legal costs?

If it does go nuclear in CAS, where every cough and splutter would seemingly be allowed, the burden of proof must surely lie at the feet of UEFA, as they only have hacked email reports from Football Leaks website, and we have subsequently provided context and supporting evidence.

That's when reputational damage also comes in to it?

Must be talking tens of millions.

A top QC of the magnitude we’ll be using will be £1000 an hour plus he’ll have a team of solicitors. The legal fees will be astronomical and as you say UEFA don’t seem to have deep pockets so City’s lawyers will be deliberately hiking the costs as much as they can in the hope UEFA blink first.

 

[nmc]

Oh I don't know mate, it wouldn't surprise me if if there was a lot of colluding and this was a joint effort between liverpool and the rags, namely Gill, who, I've never trusted from day one, it'll have his dabs on this somewhere I'm sure, you can bet your Grannies knockers on that !

I think that leaked letter on Arsenal beaded paper probably gives a clue to some of the people behind this. Don’t rule out Bayern and Barcelona as well - both morally bankrupt!

 

[KS55]

......so City’s lawyers will be deliberately hiking the costs as much as they can in the hope UEFA die first.

Amended for accuracy.

 

[nmc]

CAS has, I understand, previously admitted documents that were obtained in a dubious manner. So how the docs were obtained isn’t quite the gotcha we would like.

What’s interesting at the moment is the delay in the Adjudicatory Chamber decision. If they are to simply review or endorse the lower chamber decision I cannot understand from a legal standpoint why this would be delayed.

The submissions to CAS do suggest that UEFA were in a rush to bring matters forward. That may mean they failed to fully investigate the matter in the time allowed. Certainly the scope document only coming to light late is an issue.


It may be that UEFA is in a little bit of difficulty. Firstly if it bans us and we appeal we have good grounds to appeal and possibly pursue a defamation claim. Alternatively if the Adjudicatory Chamber doesn’t impose punishment there is still a potential defamation claim.

I think UEFA are in a lot of trouble. From comments made by Khaldoon it would seem we were hung drawn and quartered and recommended for a ban within a few days - importantly without City being asked to input. I heard that the pages and pages of dossiers City prepares were never considered as part of the so called investigation. If that is true UEFA will find it impostor make this stick because their process reflects their wider culture of bluff and bluster.