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

[Cobwebcat]

I think he could only make a decision on the evidence submitted by the investigation. If they omitted City's supporting evidence as City claim, then there is your answer.

Do we know that for sure? Would he rule against us knowing our evidence was omitted? I know UEFA needed to rush to beat the time limit but he didn’t have to presumably.

 

[Metalartin]

Do we know that for sure? Would he rule against us knowing our evidence was omitted? I know UEFA needed to rush to beat the time limit but he didn’t have to presumably.

We don't know anything for sure, nor do we know how much he knew about anything being omitted. I trust City over UEFA's "impartial" investigators lead by someone like Leterme, personally.

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

Not so George I'm afraid. We were never go to be inside FFP limits. However we were planning to use wages paid in 2012 under pre-June 2010 contracts as mitigation, thereby avoiding sanctions. It was the relevant calculation of those which UEFA changed after it was too late.

To most that means within limits as it was an allowed mitigation

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

To most that means within limits as it was an allowed mitigation

No. We failed FFP by a considerable difference. You're effectively saying that because someone was found guilty and wasn't sent to jail, they were innocent.

 

[Parisian]

So if I understand that correctly this clause in using CAS is null and void? If City so choose they don't need to go to CAS

Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.

This was my understanding too but nothing has changed. Dunno why.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Fuck uefa

 

[Eoiyflem]

New UEFA offer - "please don't won the CL and we'll drop everything"

 

[George Hannah]

No. We failed FFP by a considerable difference. You're effectively saying that because someone was found guilty and wasn't sent to jail, they were innocent.

No, that's not the situation, we should not have been sanctioned, FFP wasn't 'failed'. Failure i.e. a 'sanction' - which is the only meaningful definition of the term - was mitigated and thereby not permitted by the rules. Until UEFA corruptly changed the goalposts that is. Come on Colin - get it straight and stop this nonsense. We didn't fail FFP, you of all people are completely wrong, the rules provided for mitigation and were bent in order to damage us.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Stick that. Up your. Arse.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

No, that's not the situation, we should not have been sanctioned, FFP wasn't 'failed'. Failure i.e. a 'sanction' - which is the only meaningful definition of the term - was mitigated and thereby not permitted by the rules. Until UEFA corruptly changed the goalposts that is. Come on Colin - get it straight and stop this nonsense. We didn't fail FFP, you of all people are completely wrong, the rules provided for mitigation and were bent in order to damage us.

You can't mitigate something you passed. You could only use that provision if you'd failed. That was the rule.