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.
Nails said:
I think most people who signed up were looking for informed analysis and long reads. Not the shitty opinion pieces everyone else does. It’s been a big let down.
Click to expand...
Do you think they needed to change because they still needed clicks rather than relying totally for finance on written informed pieces?
Maybe the journos themselves have been told they must generate income?
 
M18CTID said:
Don’t shoot the messenger. I was only passing on what I heard. In any case, pretty much everyone on here didn’t want to entertain the idea that we’d get a ban and therefore it came as a shock to so many whereas to me it didn’t.
Anyway smart arse - the point of the post was that the club weren’t blindsided and must’ve known a ban was incoming.
Click to expand...
The IC leaked that they were recommending a ban of a season so the surprise was the AC imposing 2 seasons Some ITKs Sam Lee, for one, reported that the club expected no ban
 
Parisian said:
I'm not saying the case are similar. I'm just saying there can be consequences when contesting UEFA/FIFA out of CAS as the other poster said.

I still hope City will go all the way and win because FFP is a joke.
Click to expand...
I just looked at FC Sion again, & their grief started with fielding ineligible players, & after being warned about it, they did it again. They went to the civil court & won their case, but UEFA & FIFA increased their sanction because of the ongoing breaches.

If I can draw an analogy..... It's like City going to court trying to overturn the offside rule, because we don't agree with it. What it has to do with a court is beyond me, but Competition law, is competition law.

We can't just decide we want to start driving at 50mph, when the speed limit is 30mph. The law is the law. Our situation is completely different to FC Sion.
 
Dribble said:
I just looked at FC Sion again, & their grief started with fielding ineligible players, & after being warned about it, they did it again. They went to the civil court & won their case, but UEFA & FIFA increased their sanction because of the ongoing breaches.

If I can draw an analogy..... It's like City going to court trying to overturn the offside rule, because we don't agree with it. What it has to do with a court is beyond me, but Competition law, is competition law.

We can't just decide we want to start driving at 50mph, when the speed limit is 30mph. The law is the law. Our situation is completely different to FC Sion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't agree with that analogy!

Speed limits... it's not a case of us wanting to drive at 50mph when the speed limit is 30mph... it's almost the opposite – it's more a case of the speed limit being 50mph, but UEFA are restricting us to travel at 30mph... legally we are, and should be, allowed to travel at 50mph if we want!

The offside rule is a rule – a rule of a game that has to be abided by for anybody participating in said game... FFP is a law imposed by UEFA, which has to abide by external laws... for example, in the past there have been rules saying black people couldn't sit on certain seats of buses, or women were not allowed in certain parts of clubs etc. – these 'rules' have since been rightly abolished because they are illegal – as is restricting a businesses trade. Organisations can set any rule they like, but it has to abide by law... look at the outcome of the Bosman trial.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Do you think they needed to change because they still needed clicks rather than relying totally for finance on written informed pieces?
Maybe the journos themselves have been told they must generate income?
Click to expand...

Each writer signed up was supposedly told they needed to acquire so many hits, clicks and followers within a certain time period.

Don't know how true that is, but they have paid out a lot in salaries and need to get it back.
 
chaddblue said:
No.. the plan is to fuck us up completely. For us to lose pep and all our best players and to set us back 12 years. And they’ll be hoping that ADUG decide it’s not worth the hassle and sell up
Click to expand...

And literally multi-millions nay Billions go out of the game, due to their total ineptness and corruptness ….. FOOK EM !!
 
dario2739 said:
The offside rule is a rule – a rule of a game that has to be abided by for anybody participating in said game... FFP is a law imposed by UEFA, which has to abide by external laws... for example, in the past there have been rules saying black people couldn't sit on certain seats of buses, or women were not allowed in certain parts of clubs etc. – these 'rules' have since been rightly abolished because they are illegal – as is restricting a businesses trade. Organisations can set any rule they like, but it has to abide by law... look at the outcome of the Bosman trial.
Click to expand...

FFP is not a law, but it's a rule of the competition.
 
Do we get to have our day in court ? Present our defence and our evidence to the panel or is it all decided behind closed doors ?
 
bobmcfc said:
Do we get to have our day in court ? Present our defence and our evidence to the panel or is it all decided behind closed doors ?
Click to expand...

Yes, we get to present our side, hence Pannick being involved.
But it will be behind closed doors - CAS is an arbitration service, so it has to be confidential.
 
dario2739 said:
Sorry, but I don't agree with that analogy!

Speed limits... it's not a case of us wanting to drive at 50mph when the speed limit is 30mph... it's almost the opposite – it's more a case of the speed limit being 50mph, but UEFA are restricting us to travel at 30mph... legally we are, and should be, allowed to travel at 50mph if we want!

The offside rule is a rule – a rule of a game that has to be abided by for anybody participating in said game... FFP is a law imposed by UEFA, which has to abide by external laws... for example, in the past there have been rules saying black people couldn't sit on certain seats of buses, or women were not allowed in certain parts of clubs etc. – these 'rules' have since been rightly abolished because they are illegal – as is restricting a businesses trade. Organisations can set any rule they like, but it has to abide by law... look at the outcome of the Bosman trial.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you didn't get my analogy, but that's exactly what I meant. UEFA can set all the rules they like, but if when challenged the rules are found to contravene EU law, the rules are destined for the dustbin.
 
Dribble said:
Perhaps you didn't get my analogy, but that's exactly what I meant. UEFA can set all the rules they like, but if when challenged the rules are found to contravene EU law, the rules are destined for the dustbin.
Click to expand...

Are they though? My understanding of Stefan Borson’s excellent piece on the 93:20 podcast was that CAS had previously confirmed that FFP was compatible with EU competition law (see below). A Court may take a different view, but I don’t think we would be wise to bank on it.


From the 93:20 podcast....

“For completeness, it seems to me that City are on less firm ground on the sort of well-trodden arguments UEFA rolled out in CAS 2018/A/5808 AC Milan v. UEFA. UEFA has successfully argued that clubs voluntarily submit to the rules and regulations of UEFA in order to participate in the European club championships. In particular it appears that UEFA will continue to argue that FFP does not breach competition law, EU competition law is not directly applicable to FFP generally and CAS jurisprudence has confirmed that the CL & FFP Regulations are compatible with EU competition law. This is likely to be relatively safe ground for UEFA at CAS – areas that have been tested before and more difficult for CAS to overturn in any meaningful way.”
 
Dribble said:
Perhaps you didn't get my analogy, but that's exactly what I meant. UEFA can set all the rules they like, but if when challenged the rules are found to contravene EU law, the rules are destined for the dustbin.
Click to expand...

This is the nuts of it.

I would describe it as Terms & Conditions of the UEFA CL. They will argue we signed up to the Ts&Cs and they restrict investment. We will argue the Ts&Cs are unlawful (competition law). The legal decision would come down to can the participants agree between themselves to restrict their investment and is that ok under the wording of competition law. It will be very technical and could go either way. The way I see it is that if we win then the whole approach to FFP across all the leagues gets voided as it is all set up to restrict investment of a certain type. It would be much easier to restrict other things like debt levels, wages and losses.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Are they though? My understanding of Stefan Borson’s excellent piece on the 93:20 podcast was that CAS had previously confirmed that FFP was compatible with EU competition law (see below). A Court may take a different view, but I don’t think we would be wise to bank on it.


From the 93:20 podcast....

“For completeness, it seems to me that City are on less firm ground on the sort of well-trodden arguments UEFA rolled out in CAS 2018/A/5808 AC Milan v. UEFA. UEFA has successfully argued that clubs voluntarily submit to the rules and regulations of UEFA in order to participate in the European club championships. In particular it appears that UEFA will continue to argue that FFP does not breach competition law, EU competition law is not directly applicable to FFP generally and CAS jurisprudence has confirmed that the CL & FFP Regulations are compatible with EU competition law. This is likely to be relatively safe ground for UEFA at CAS – areas that have been tested before and more difficult for CAS to overturn in any meaningful way.”
Click to expand...
As you say - a court may take a different view.
I don’t know what qualifications CAS have to judge the legality of ffp, in relation to eu competition law, and as we seem to be challenging only possible due process breaches there, then their views on ffp in itself, may be irrelevant.
The real challenge to ffp’s legitimacy in law can only be made in a court of law.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Are they though? My understanding of Stefan Borson’s excellent piece on the 93:20 podcast was that CAS had previously confirmed that FFP was compatible with EU competition law (see below). A Court may take a different view, but I don’t think we would be wise to bank on it.


From the 93:20 podcast....

“For completeness, it seems to me that City are on less firm ground on the sort of well-trodden arguments UEFA rolled out in CAS 2018/A/5808 AC Milan v. UEFA. UEFA has successfully argued that clubs voluntarily submit to the rules and regulations of UEFA in order to participate in the European club championships. In particular it appears that UEFA will continue to argue that FFP does not breach competition law, EU competition law is not directly applicable to FFP generally and CAS jurisprudence has confirmed that the CL & FFP Regulations are compatible with EU competition law. This is likely to be relatively safe ground for UEFA at CAS – areas that have been tested before and more difficult for CAS to overturn in any meaningful way.”
Click to expand...
I gave the analogy of setting up a Fast & Furious Speed Club. The rules of the club are you can drive at any speed you like. However the UK speed limit is 30. If the speed club challenge the speed limit, who's going to win? The speed club rules, or the law of the land?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top