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.
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Failing to identify an unforeseeable situation is typical City? Think you might need to rethink that one, fella!
Click to expand...
Tongue in cheek mate! on a serious note though I do wonder how this all plays out now, surely any cases unable to be heard by CAS must see punishments suspended until they are able to?

I think UEFA themselves would even prefer that.
 
We have seen Bury go bust already without a pandemic and it is doubtless the case that many clubs, maybe not all smaller clubs already struggling, will cease to exist as a result of this crisis. Few clubs, whatever their size, history, tradition or annual revenue, will come through it without serious, possibly long term, difficulties. Few will be able to maintain the fiction that FFP is the saviour of the game and it will be seen clearly for what it is, a massive obstacle to to true financial stability. The wider economic damage done by the virus may mean that those sources of income seen as "clean" by FFP are no longer available and debt levels outside the game are astronomical, not only in Britain but also in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. "Sweetheart" deals between Spanish banks and Real and Barcelona seem a very remote possibility. We have seen how long lasting the effects of the crash have been - and the precise form of FFP seems to have been a reaction to that - and its effects did not weigh heavily on football, but the effects of the virus could weigh on football for the next 30 years.
 
WRicko said:
Even the best insurance wont cover this look at whats happening with travel insurance and smaller business that are closing. They are not covered because its a pandemic or Force Majeure
Click to expand...

Force Majeure covers responsibility to adhere to contracts under the stress of cataclysmic events.
It is not something that can’t be insured against - you can insure against anything you like and the more remote the chance of it occurring the cheaper the dividends.
The fact of the matter is that the directors of some clubs chose not to insure against pandemic as a business continuity risk - it was their decision to not insure / pocket the money and they should bear responsibility for their choices.
If I came on this forum saying that I wanted everyone to have a whip round because I’d not bothered to insure my property against fire, and then suffered a fire and couldn’t pay for repairs, then a lot of folk would be telling me that I was an idiot and that I should live with the consequence of my deliberate omissions - this is no different, except perhaps that insuring a football club against the cost impact of a pandemic would be even more stupid because company directors have (since Enron) a legal obligation to manage all such risks.
I know this because I'm a company director and commercial & risk management is what I do for a living.
 
Last edited:
Coronavirus is a reality check that goes beyond contract law.

The EU State Aid laws are already going out the window with airlines such as Lufthansa/Air France/KLM guaranteed government support unlike BA/Iberia, Easyjet. Insurance assumes an ability to pay based on blame. Force Majeure basically means all bets off so anything not completed is null and void. It is designed to avoid endless legal disputes.

Those proposing changes to effect closure of the football season by alternative solutions such as freezing current standings, forecasting outcomes, extending the season and playing under different conditions risk a strong legal challenge at all levels.

Football and FFP will be out the window. Credit will be called in and not extended. If investment is denied, more debt inevitable and insolvency common then what are the options? Suddenly the whole basis of FFP for which City are being accused becomes the best option. Our CFG owners have already made a return on their investment but are being penalised whilst being subject to forensic investigation with moving rules.
 
It will depend on the application of "Force majeure" as much as anything.

The easy clean solution is to make anything null and void not in the current rules.
Everything to start fresh under new rules. Anything else will create precedents, legal confusion and complications.
 
OccupiedPalestineBlues said:
I think she's absolutely right in her opinion.
Business continuity insurance is cheap to buy (when there isn't a pandemic) and any reasonable level of commercial management would have ensured they had it in place.
Not having it in place is a deliberate act, you set your insurances, you choose what you do insure for and what you don't. The rule of thumb is that you can choose to not insure against risks that you can handle yourself but you always insure against risks that you can't handle. In the same way that a lot of people don't insure push bikes or mobile phones but almost everybody insures their property - and those that choose to pocket the money instead of insuring their homes have nobody else to blame other than themselves if their roof blows off and they can't afford the repairs.
From the sound of things, a lot of clubs don't have adequate or appropriate insurances in place and that's their entirely their own deliberate doing. They chose to take bigger dividends by not insuring and then they expect others to bail them out and, in my opinion, they can go whistle.
If some if them go out of business then that'll be a self-enacted cull of the stupid and the more astutely managed / less greedy clubs will continue.
It's a meritocracy whereby those who merit survival do so and those that don't don't, because they don't deserve to.
Click to expand...
And what about their players?
There could be quite a cull in the lower leagues.
 
uwe rosler 28 said:
What happens if there is no european footy for the next 2 seasons does that mean our ban is complete??
Click to expand...

Although originally the media reported the ban was for seasons "20/21 and 21/22". It was later reported as for the "next 2 seasons in which we qualify for European football". Personally I would assume there also has to be european football actually played that we miss out on?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Spain has two major leagues, La Liga and La Liga 2. I think Germany has 3 national leagues, France & Italy have 2.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with English football?

Would you prefer that the other divisions collapse and fuck off Colin?

All that history up in smoke, it is hard to say what you are really getting at tbh what with the scant explanation in your one sentence post.

As for Spain, they have more than two divisions, they have Segunda B that has 4 groups that still get promoted to La Liga Smartbank( or also known as Segunda Division)

Italy has 3 - Serie C

For what it's worth.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Spain has two major leagues, La Liga and La Liga 2. I think Germany has 3 national leagues, France & Italy have 2.
Click to expand...
France have three National Leagues: Ligue 1 (20 teams), Ligue 2 (20 teams), and National (18 teams). Below that is regionalised with four 16-team groups in National 2 and twelve 14-team groups in National 3.

Below that are Regional and Departmental Leagues going down to Level 15.
 
uwe rosler 28 said:
What happens if there is no european footy for the next 2 seasons does that mean our ban is complete??
Click to expand...
no ban yet, and there won't be, imo, I think in their zeal uefa have screwed up, and our exec. are poised in the good position that they have maintained all along.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top