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

[BAB.DAB]

Putting 2 and 2 together and making 22 - @Prestwich_Blue indicated sometime ago that we were planning to dish some dirt on LFC - @tolmie's hairdoo has recently indicated there may be police enquires - ‘a sting’. I am a complete KFA but I can’t believe City and our owners have sat around doing nothing whilst those shit houses like Gill, Parry and those wankers in Munich have been openly conspiring against us - for years. Football is awash with money, dodgy people, money laundering, back handlers and sycophants. You wouldn’t have to dig too hard to catch out people like Allardyce, Platini and co.... come on City cheer us all up and drop a few bombs. The time for appeasement is over... I want some Blitzkrieg !

Totally agree with you, hopefully this is going to happen sooner rather than later

 

[Sir peace frog]

Think City are going legal

is there something I cant see,i cant see the conversation before the" with no champions league ???????

 

[franksinatra]

I think you’re above liverpool fans.

by a whisker.

You give me far too much credit.

 

[BAB.DAB]

is there something I cant see,i cant see the conversation before the" with no champions league ???????

Monkey sponge on twitter is a Liverpool supporting football agent , he thinks it's going legal , our champions League ban

 

[BAB.DAB]

is there something I cant see,i cant see the conversation before the" with no champions league ???????

He thinks we will go for mbappe in the summer

 

[willipp]

Putting 2 and 2 together and making 22 - @Prestwich_Blue indicated sometime ago that we were planning to dish some dirt on LFC - @tolmie's hairdoo has recently indicated there may be police enquires - ‘a sting’. I am a complete KFA but I can’t believe City and our owners have sat around doing nothing whilst those shit houses like Gill, Parry and those wankers in Munich have been openly conspiring against us - for years. Football is awash with money, dodgy people, money laundering, back handlers and sycophants. You wouldn’t have to dig too hard to catch out people like Allardyce, Platini and co.... come on City cheer us all up and drop a few bombs. The time for appeasement is over... I want some Blitzkrieg !

We've been wanting some Blitzkrieg for 7 years now so its about bloody time. I won't hold my breath just yet though.

 

[Paladin]

Monkey sponge on twitter is a Liverpool supporting football agent , he thinks it's going legal , our champions League ban

I'm not sure the tweet is that relevant in that case. If by 'going legal', he means CAS, then that isn't news. If he's pre-judging the outcome of that and predicting a City loss, then it's pretty obvious City would take it further.

Surely, this means something other than what we already know, which is CAS.

 

[BAB.DAB]

I'm not sure the tweet is that relevant in that case. If by 'going legal', he means CAS, then that isn't news. If he's pre-judging the outcome of that and predicting a City loss, then it's pretty obvious City would take it further.

Surely, this means something other than what we already know, which is CAS.

Agree, something more to this

 

[moomba]

I want us cleared, the only way for that to happen is go through the appeals process.

Hard to think of any "legal" developments that won't be seen as evil oil money lawyers getting us off on a technicality.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Based upon their own time frame to complete and that PSG had the later part of thier case dismissed due to the same detail, I fail to see how UEFA can make this stick in CAS or anywhere else for that matter.

It may well be that we were somewhat creative after the fact, and that UEFA are more than a little pissed they missed it and said fuck it, stick on the ban anyway and let's ride it in the CAS.

CAS have previous for moving goal posts, I believe.

Let's see what happens.

I'd welcome clarification from PB on this point. My understanding is that we are dealing with a matter of some legal significance here since at issue are wages agreed in contracts signed some considerable time before the terms of FFP were known. UEFA could not, therefore, find a club in breach of the regulations for spending before there was any regulation of spending. But I am certain that City were in regular contact with UEFA to ensure that we were in a position to avoid any sanction. We received assurances from UEFA that this was the case and the club still has these assurances. Only after our accounts had been published did UEFA change the date limit on these wages. This is certainly not City being "somewhat creative after the fact" nor is it reason for UEFA to be "more than a little pissed they missed it". It shows clearly that City did everything to conform and were victim to something very similar to entrapment. This is one of many procedural reasons why I too "fail to see how UEFA can make this stick in CAS or anywhere else for that matter."

 

[nmc]

I'd welcome clarification from PB on this point. My understanding is that we are dealing with a matter of some legal significance here since at issue are wages agreed in contracts signed some considerable time before the terms of FFP were known. UEFA could not, therefore, find a club in breach of the regulations for spending before there was any regulation of spending. But I am certain that City were in regular contact with UEFA to ensure that we were in a position to avoid any sanction. We received assurances from UEFA that this was the case and the club still has these assurances. Only after our accounts had been published did UEFA change the date limit on these wages. This is certainly not City being "somewhat creative after the fact" nor is it reason for UEFA to be "more than a little pissed they missed it". It shows clearly that City did everything to conform and were victim to something very similar to entrapment. This is one of many procedural reasons why I too "fail to see how UEFA can make this stick in CAS or anywhere else for that matter."

Good post and the issue at hand is the prevailing view within UEFA that still looms large that “it’s our closed shop so we can do whatever we want” and if you play in our competitions you have de facto accepted our rules! Of course that’s only UEFAs view and as Bosman proved - UEFAs view doesn’t always prevail and their rules are not always lawful.

 

[Paladin]

Good post and the issue at hand is the prevailing view within UEFA that still looms large that “it’s our closed shop so we can do whatever we want” and if you play in our competitions you have de facto accepted our rules! Of course that’s only UEFAs view and as Bosman proved - UEFAs view doesn’t always prevail and their rules are not always lawful.

Plus they can't have rules that are illegal. Is it appropriate to draw comparisons with golf clubs, that used to ban women from membership? Were they eventually overruled by law, or public onion?

 

[nmc]

Plus they can't have rules that are illegal. Is it appropriate to draw comparisons with golf clubs, that used to ban women from membership? Were they eventually overruled by law, or public onion?

Brings tears to my eyes

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Plus they can't have rules that are illegal. Is it appropriate to draw comparisons with golf clubs, that used to ban women from membership? Were they eventually overruled by law, or public onion?

Yes, I cannot see how any limit on owner investment can be anything other than unlawful and I think City may well go all the way to ECJ to end this nonsense once and for all, but CAS will not deal with the fundamental question of the legality of the rules. It will confine itself to the question of whet her City have broken these rules (do we have to prove we have not? Or do UEFA have to prove we have? Or can UEFA argue that IC and AC were convinced we had so the onus of proof is now on us!) AND whether the hearing given to City was fair and impartial and the verdict and sentence consistent with previous cases. If City can satisfy CAS on both counts that we have been treated unfairly the ban will be overturned, but UEFA will be free to trump (!) up charges in the future to cause us problems. If we go to ECJ and have FFP thrown out AND its fundamental principles found unlawful UEFA would holed well below the water line.

 

[BAB.DAB]

Yes, I cannot see how any limit on owner investment can be anything other than unlawful and I think City may well go all the way to ECJ to end this nonsense once and for all, but CAS will not deal with the fundamental question of the legality of the rules. It will confine itself to the question of whet her City have broken these rules (do we have to prove we have not? Or do UEFA have to prove we have? Or can UEFA argue that IC and AC were convinced we had so the onus of proof is now on us!) AND whether the hearing given to City was fair and impartial and the verdict and sentence consistent with previous cases. If City can satisfy CAS on both counts that we have been treated unfairly the ban will be overturned, but UEFA will be free to trump (!) up charges in the future to cause us problems. If we go to ECJ and have FFP thrown out AND its fundamental principles found unlawful UEFA would holed well below the water line.

Don't think that will happen, think City will provide evidence that they are being targeted

 

[BobbyBoy]

Yes, I cannot see how any limit on owner investment can be anything other than unlawful and I think City may well go all the way to ECJ to end this nonsense once and for all, but CAS will not deal with the fundamental question of the legality of the rules. It will confine itself to the question of whet her City have broken these rules (do we have to prove we have not? Or do UEFA have to prove we have? Or can UEFA argue that IC and AC were convinced we had so the onus of proof is now on us!) AND whether the hearing given to City was fair and impartial and the verdict and sentence consistent with previous cases. If City can satisfy CAS on both counts that we have been treated unfairly the ban will be overturned, but UEFA will be free to trump (!) up charges in the future to cause us problems. If we go to ECJ and have FFP thrown out AND its fundamental principles found unlawful UEFA would holed well below the water line.

FFP doesn't limit owner investment, an owner can install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon if they want. The day to day part of the business must meet certain trading terms to qualify for entry to European competition. If you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you. What is illegal about that?

Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?

 

[KS55]

Surely the current case is about alleged overstating of sponsorship money? That is, our accounts showed sponsors paid £x, whereas in reality they paid less with the difference made up by 'HH'.
Wages not an issue. As I understand it, UEFA claim we misled them and that our accounts are not a true and fair record. This 'misleading' is the excuse used to reopen the old settlement.
As a side issue, UEFA may claim that sponsorship by a loss making nationalized company (Etihad) whose losses are made good by the owner (i.e. the gov), is not really sponsorship, but state support. They will struggle with that because such a situation is common: see Arsenal and Emirates and all Russian clubs, inter alios.

 

[asahartford1]

Plus they can't have rules that are illegal. Is it appropriate to draw comparisons with golf clubs, that used to ban women from membership? Were they eventually overruled by law, or public onion?

A sad day that was.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

FFP doesn't limit owner investment, an owner can install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon if they want. The day to day part of the business must meet certain trading terms to qualify for entry to European competition. If you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you. What is illegal about that?

Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?

Article 101 of TfEU states unequivocally that "any agreement to limit or control production, markets, technical developments or investment" are prohibited. When you say that "if you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you (like)" you are actually admitting that if you DO want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you have to agree NOT to spend what you like, and this is a clear acceptance of a limit on investment. UEFA is quite clear on what it will not let you spend. This is, of course, the fundamental part of FFP, the break even rule; clubs may not spend more than what they " earn" from certain sources. In other words a club may only spend what other companies put into your club, not your owner! If they do the owner/shareholders may only make up 30 million euros of the difference over three years. Now expenditure on academies, stadia etc are not counted towards the break even calculation, though interest on loans to pay for them is. Money spent on players (transfer fees and wages) is counted in full. Money spent on players is investment in an asset just as spending on an academy or a stadium, and it is clear that a team of low cost, poor players will keep an expensive stadium near empty. Thus FFP clearly limits investment by owners and shareholders and, in short, that is what is illegal about that., and further proof of this comes from the settlement agreed by City and UEFA in 2014. UEFA decreed that City's wage bill must not increase for two years, they set down a limit on what City could spend in the transfer market and City were even allowed a squad of only 21 in the CL instead of the 25 other teams were allowed. In no other area of economic activity is this degree of interference from an external body contemplated, let alone allowed. UEFA is in fact abusing a dominant market position - and this is prohibited - by trying to force participants to accept an abrogation of their rights as a pre-entry condition. City's acceptance of the settlement of 2014 was only an agreement in that the club's consent was obtained only because refusal would have led to long legal proceedings damaging to its interests.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

FFP doesn't limit owner investment, an owner can install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon if they want. The day to day part of the business must meet certain trading terms to qualify for entry to European competition. If you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you. What is illegal about that?

Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?

You can’t see the irony in this if you think a system which allows owners to ‘install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon’ but cannot invest their own money in employing the best possible staff for their own business is acceptable?