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

[Coatigan]

As a Chelsea supporter I really am neutral on the whole issue but unlike other matters with UEFAs jurisdictions participating in UEFAs competitions is dependant on getting a license. Each club has to make an application and jump through all sorts of hoops.

I am far far from an expert but here’s one of the conditions that you are required to accept.

LEGAL CRITERIA
Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions
1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the following:
a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes;
b) At national level it will play in competitions recognised and endorsed by the UEFA member association (e.g. national championship, national cup);
c) At international level it will participate in competitions recognised by UEFA or FIFA (to avoid any doubt, this provision does not relate to friendly matches);
d) It will promptly inform the licensor about any significant change, event or condition of major economic importance;
e) Itwillabidebyandobservetheclublicensingregulationsofthelicensor;
f) It will abide by and observe the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play
Regulations;
g) ItsreportingperimeterisdefinedinaccordancewithArticle46bis;
h) It will be accountable for any consequences of an entity included in the
reporting perimeter not abiding by and observing items e) and f) above;
i) All submitted documents are complete and correct;
j) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration and national
club licensing bodies, the UEFA administration and the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice to examine any relevant document and seek information from any relevant public authority or private body in accordance with national law;
k) It acknowledges that UEFA reserves the right to execute compliance audits at national level in accordance with Article 71.
2 The declaration must be executed by an authorised signatory of the licence applicant no more than three months prior to the deadline for its submission

Useful, but im not sure what the point you are trying to make is?

 

[terraloon]

ECJ.

Useful, but im not sure what the point you are trying to make is?

It’s 1a that I think is the most relevant.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

That is my issue. I hope the club follow a different path from now on. Challenging FFP, not just for our benefit, and fighting inequality in football for the greater good would help us win the moral argument.

Rather than challenge the elite but then behave like them, with regards tv rights splits etc, weakens our argument.

You're way wide of the mark here. City have made it quite clear that they have never accepted FFP. They have actually said that the club intends to operate as a profitable club BUT only after a period of heavy investment. What is impossible is to fight "inequality in football for the greater good" so that you can win some "moral argument" because laws are made to apply to specific cases and a court would not entertain some airy fairy challenge to FFP. Litigation is, anyway, long, always costly and the outcome uncertain. In 2014 the club took a commercial decision that "taking the pinch" WHILE NOT ACCEPTING THAT IT HAD DONE ANYTHING WRONG avoided a long and costly distraction from the commercial development of the club, which was proving brilliantly successful. Now, our case is that we still do not accept the validity of FFP (and, I suspect, are quite prepared to test this before the ECJ if necessary) but that we have not infringed these regulations anyway and have only been found to have done by the IC which has accepted evidence obtained illegally and which is inadmissible because of this and its inherent unreliability, and because the procedure followed in the two UEFA chambers is not impartial objective or consistent to the point where it is reliable.

This seems a strong case, if this is indeed the club's case (I certainly don't think our legal team need any help from us) and don't worry it seems to be near the summit of the moral high ground. And TV splits are totally irrelevant to this case. Our rivals in the elite tell us we can only use sources of revenue they have been able to develop but you are not allowed to use your advantage - very moral.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

So they want to punish us retrospectively for breaching a rule they have since abolished. That sounds very fair. What a bloody witchhunt this is.

Doesn't it just! Have we actually and hard evidence, hard evidence not the alarmist stories in the press, that PL CAN or wish to take any action at all against City?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Doesn't it just! Have we actually and hard evidence, hard evidence not the alarmist stories in the press, that PL CAN or wish to take any action at all against City?

I read the PL rulebook the other week and as far as my limited review and interpretation could tell, there's not really a reason why they couldn't if they found something of a sufficient nature to trigger the process.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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

I can tell you that UEFA don't have the emails. Their sole evidence, the thing they've based their case on, is the Der Spiegel stories. That is it. They can't prove that these emails ever existed or are genuine.

No wonder we wre so confident. CAS will laugh them out of court.

 

[domalino]

I can tell you that UEFA don't have the emails.

Seriously?! I thought der Spiegel forwarded everything on.

All they have is the 4 articles in der Spiegel? Hahaha christ alive.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I can tell you that UEFA don't have the emails. Their sole evidence, the thing they've based their case on, is the Der Spiegel stories. That is it. They can't prove that these emails ever existed or are genuine.

No wonder we wre so confident. CAS will laugh them out of court.

makes you wonder what the end game is, from all 3 parties.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

makes you wonder what the end game is, from all 3 parties.

I've said this before; UEFA (the organisation) are piggy in the middle. The old G-14 clubs have systematically targeted us in all sorts of ways. There's things I can't say publicly or privately but it's quite astonishing what has been going on.

 

[bluetonium]

Parry is not FA, he's Football League, and I doubt was there at the time.
Cartwright was non-exec at Liverpool, but has been at a whole range of big jobs outside.
Clarke? Blimey, Leicester are against us now?

Picking out conflicts of interest has some value, but creating ones which aren't there is counter-productive.

I'd like to direct you to the FA's own website, which lists both Parry and Cartwright in those positions I mentioned. Parry is definitely on the FA board of directors right now.
http://www.thefa.com/about-football-association/who-we-are/structure

Not saying anyone is against us. I am however saying that such conflicts of interest would not be allowed in many other industries and I don't think they should be allowed in football either.