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.
Goatmeal said:
Bosman has proved that organisations are not above the laws of the land.
For example, if UEFA include a rule that if their rules are broken then the owners would be lined up against a wall and shot. This isn’t legal. Neither is FFP on so many levels, but nobody as yet has gone all the way to fight it in the courts.
City and PSG came closest but city took the pinch and PSG had their backs scratched.
Click to expand...

My point is, and yes badly made, is that no one makes you comply with UEFAS version of FFP but if you want to play in UEFA competitions, again no one makes you then clubs sign a legally binding agreement that you accept the authority of UEFA and ultimately the CAS process. FFP is only a part of the requirements to gain a licence.
I have no idea as to the value of the Etihad deal and from a pure observers point I don’t see that as being the current issue it revolves around who and how the £67 odd million was funded.UEFA aren’t responsible for the administration of licences in England that is delegated to the FA and whilst I have no doubt that the accounts show the full sum being accounted for there are additional submissions that go hand in hand with audited accounts.

Bosman alongside the Webster rulings were FIFA issues and not UEFA. I fully get it that there is a view that FFP breeches European competition rules and fully accept that nobody has yet gone all the way to challenge and it will be interesting watching how any such submission is ruled on and should City lose the CAS case, I have no real take on the validity of UEFAS case, but post going to Swiss law what route is available to City who aren’t registered in a Eu country and are objecting to a non EU based organisation?
 
terraloon said:
Bosman alongside the Webster rulings were FIFA issues and not UEFA.
Click to expand...
Wrong. UEFA were the defendant.
terraloon said:
My point is, and yes badly made, is that no one makes you comply with UEFAS version of FFP but if you want to play in UEFA competitions
Click to expand...
Nobody made Bosman become a footballer.
 
terraloon said:
My point is, and yes badly made, is that no one makes you comply with UEFAS version of FFP but if you want to play in UEFA competitions, again no one makes you then clubs sign a legally binding agreement that you accept the authority of UEFA and ultimately the CAS process. FFP is only a part of the requirements to gain a licence.
I have no idea as to the value of the Etihad deal and from a pure observers point I don’t see that as being the current issue it revolves around who and how the £67 odd million was funded.UEFA aren’t responsible for the administration of licences in England that is delegated to the FA and whilst I have no doubt that the accounts show the full sum being accounted for there are additional submissions that go hand in hand with audited accounts.

Bosman alongside the Webster rulings were FIFA issues and not UEFA. I fully get it that there is a view that FFP breeches European competition rules and fully accept that nobody has yet gone all the way to challenge and it will be interesting watching how any such submission is ruled on and should City lose the CAS case, I have no real take on the validity of UEFAS case, but post going to Swiss law what route is available to City who aren’t registered in a Eu country and are objecting to a non EU based organisation?
Click to expand...

Correct! The thing is we haven’t Broken any rules and they are try to do us over stolen emails!
 
the talisman said:
Look at point j) in the Chelsea fan’s post. I don’t think those emails were obtained in accordance with national law
Click to expand...

I too question the admissibility of the “ hacked documents” but my take on that clause is that UEFA would argue the documents are relevant.

Playing devils advocate Let’s just for one second that hacked emails from another club say regarding bullying or the like were correct surely it would only right and proper that the issue be investigated by UEFA or would it be right for them to just ignore the matter?
 
terraloon said:
I too question the admissibility of the “ hacked documents” but my take on that clause is that UEFA would argue the documents are relevant.

Playing devils advocate Let’s just for one second that hacked emails from another club say regarding bullying or the like were correct surely it would only right and proper that the issue be investigated by UEFA or would it be right for them to just ignore the matter?
Click to expand...
Bullying would be a police matter and subject to the laws of the court in jurisdiction.
 
terraloon said:
I too question the admissibility of the “ hacked documents” but my take on that clause is that UEFA would argue the documents are relevant.

Playing devils advocate Let’s just for one second that hacked emails from another club say regarding bullying or the like were correct surely it would only right and proper that the issue be investigated by UEFA or would it be right for them to just ignore the matter?
Click to expand...

Agree and from what i have read Swiss law states that CAS can look at illigally obtained material should it be classed as 'overriding interest'

That said, what our owners are saying is that the emails were taken out of context and the full extent of those emails have not been seen. The hacker has used snippets of the emails to show a one-dimensional story. and I also believe that I have read somewhere that this hacker who is currently arrested has also changed documents relating to other stolen material
 
terraloon said:
My point is, and yes badly made, is that no one makes you comply with UEFAS version of FFP but if you want to play in UEFA competitions, again no one makes you then clubs sign a legally binding agreement that you accept the authority of UEFA and ultimately the CAS process. FFP is only a part of the requirements to gain a licence.
I have no idea as to the value of the Etihad deal and from a pure observers point I don’t see that as being the current issue it revolves around who and how the £67 odd million was funded.UEFA aren’t responsible for the administration of licences in England that is delegated to the FA and whilst I have no doubt that the accounts show the full sum being accounted for there are additional submissions that go hand in hand with audited accounts.

Bosman alongside the Webster rulings were FIFA issues and not UEFA. I fully get it that there is a view that FFP breeches European competition rules and fully accept that nobody has yet gone all the way to challenge and it will be interesting watching how any such submission is ruled on and should City lose the CAS case, I have no real take on the validity of UEFAS case, but post going to Swiss law what route is available to City who aren’t registered in a Eu country and are objecting to a non EU based organisation?
Click to expand...

I hear this way too often. It is a gross oversight and over simplification of the actual issues at play. Of course city signed up for the license and ultimately the competition but thats not to say that we can't then disagree with a subsequent process and judgement. If the club feels they haven't be dealt with fairly or in the interests of football as a whole then they 100% have the right to appeal against this. UEFA is meant to be a democratic representation of all the FA's and thus the football clubs that make up these FA's. It is not a dictatorship that is beyond reproach. They are open to corruption and persuasion more than most similar organisations due to the vast sums of money and press coverage at play. It puzzles me when fans of other clubs think we should accept what they say as gospel. Let's not forget that along with FIFA they've had their fair share of controversy and corruption in recent history.
 
BlueMoonz1977 said:
Agree and from what i have read Swiss law states that CAS can look at illigally obtained material should it be classed as 'overriding interest'

That said, what our owners are saying is that the emails were taken out of context and the full extent of those emails have not been seen. The hacker has used snippets of the emails to show a one-dimensional story. and I also believe that I have read somewhere that this hacker who is currently arrested has also changed documents relating to other stolen material
Click to expand...

Surely this will mean the club produce those emails in their entirety at the CAS hearing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nmc
What will be interesting is if this does fail at CAS then end up in the Swiss courts I would imagine New York Times and the Associated Press would be called up to give evidence on where they obtained the leaked meeting information from. That's if City do not already have that information at hand and ready to drop it at CAS.
 
svennis pennis said:
Love how all these cases against us involve a very substantial fine. ‘We hate that you’ve spent your own money, we won’t allow that, but we will demand a huge amount of it for ourselves’.
Click to expand...
Probably fail FFP in the future due to having to pay the fine!
 
Marvin said:
What happens if the CL next season is disrupted by coronavirus? Would they extend the ban by another year?

(China controlled it within a month. But China can build a hospital in two weeks).
Click to expand...

We may not like it but China can be pretty authoritarian and that helps control the spread of viruses etc. The UK cannot control people and their movements the way China can and hence it will take much longer to get the virus under control. Can you imagine London Bankers being isolated for 14 days - they’ll say fuck it and go to work !
 
trumpton said:
Probably fail FFP in the future due to having to pay the fine!
Click to expand...


There used to be a clause that the paying of previous FFP fines would not be taken into account for subsequent monitoring periods, although if there's any percieved benefit to the cartel I'am sure its been removed form currently rules or changed to disciplinary fines for previous breeches will be weight at 200% for the subsequent monitoring period.
 
Sleeping_Easy said:
I hear this way too often. It is a gross oversight and over simplification of the actual issues at play. Of course city signed up for the license and ultimately the competition but thats not to say that we can't then disagree with a subsequent process and judgement. If the club feels they haven't be dealt with fairly or in the interests of football as a whole then they 100% have the right to appeal against this. UEFA is meant to be a democratic representation of all the FA's and thus the football clubs that make up these FA's. It is not a dictatorship that is beyond reproach. They are open to corruption and persuasion more than most similar organisations due to the vast sums of money and press coverage at play. It puzzles me when fans of other clubs think we should accept what they say as gospel. Let's not forget that along with FIFA they've had their fair share of controversy and corruption in recent history.
Click to expand...

Of course they , like any other club can disagree and within the rules there is a route through UEFA discipline process to Independent appeal at CAS.


My point is that City just like any other club gaining a license has agree to follow that process with gains total independence when it reaches CAS.Some on here have talked about taking it all the way through the courts my point is which court post CAS and maybe Swiss Courts?
 
terraloon said:
Of course they , like any other club can disagree and within the rules there is a route through UEFA discipline process to Independent appeal at CAS.


My point is that City just like any other club gaining a license has agree to follow that process with gains total independence when it reaches CAS.Some on here have talked about taking it all the way through the courts my point is which court post CAS and maybe Swiss Courts?
Click to expand...
ECJ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top