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

[cheekybids]

I’d love nothing more myself. I just don’t think a secret bombshell dossier assembled over however long (and presumably pre-dating Der Spiegelgate) is particularly plausible

Being the only ones playing by the rules isn’t always enough when playing in a crooked game.

Look at the shit that goes on in the world & when money & power are at stake nothing surprises me. It’s an impossible task when the media is controlled as it’s normally shame of exposure that keeps society honest but when you control the media they can make any judgement.

I have to believe we are well connected & can win & control this. Let’s be honest the biggest club in the world is owned by blokes who own a few malls. If the Sheik is Prem league, the Glazers are Conference.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Haven’t we got a dossier of evidence seemingly showing no wrong-doing which UEFA decided to ignore? If the club are telling the truth on that then surely that will show we’ve gone to substantial lengths to clear our name, but yeah, maybe we’ve got something else up our sleeve too in case that failed - I’ve seen a suggestion that we might present them with the Etihad accounts which will show the source of the funds didn’t come from our owner. Now that would be piss funny if we casually dropped that one in on the first morning of the appeal.

It's also doesn't mean that even if UEFA had it, and read it, that they gave the entirety of its contents to the chambers...

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Maybe, maybe not.

Pretty subjective.

I’d expect a guy of that standing to be at least relatively rational in his his decisions.

We have a case to answer that’s going before a group of very qualified legal professionals. We’ve got together a bunch of what looks like the best to fight our corner. We’ll need them because we’re appealing against pretty strong findings, almost unprecedented.

I’m sure we’ve got some great points. I’m also pretty convinced UEFA do too. It’ll probably come down to a few core issues that are very grey in interpretation. I hope we’re on the right side of that grey.

Here’s hoping you’re right, or your sources are.

It’s interesting that people are concerned that uefa are represented by qualified legal professionals when uefa are asking those very professionals, whom they appointed and instructed to act within uefa guidelines, to try, and to judge a case where they are required to apply, not the law, in which they have been trained and are experienced, but uefa’s own set of regulations which appear, in the eyes of many, to be unlawful in respect of European law.
This was surely the salient lesson of the Bosman ruling

 

[chesterbells]

My hope is that we didn’t fully comply with the investigation as we knew that they would find us guilty regardless, so have withheld evidence for the CAS hearing in pursuit of total exoneration. Might be wishful thinking, but who knows. Going to be fascinating to see how this plays out anyway, especially as the stakes are so high.

Agreed, stakes are v high. Although the covid lockdown situation has taken the edge off the whole business, for me anyway. Instead of being 100% anxious about the outcome, I’d say it’s probably only about 85%. I mean, it’s important, but it’s only football, y’know. And our club will still be there for me to support, whatever.

 

[blue oli]

Ok - been fairly busy recently what with all that’s going on, so taking an hour to try and catch up on stuff - I see we have the dates now for the hearing, but anyone willing to give a Blinkist version of the thread for the last couple of weeks please ?

 

[GBrannan]

My hope is that we didn’t fully comply with the investigation as we knew that they would find us guilty regardless, so have withheld evidence for the CAS hearing in pursuit of total exoneration. Might be wishful thinking, but who knows. Going to be fascinating to see how this plays out anyway, especially as the stakes are so high.

My hope too.

If not it’s going to be very dodgy.

My point, as made earlier, is that the idea that the final verdict was made only by disgruntled clubs and voiciferous failed politicians seems pretty wide of the mark. It was eventually done by a very senior legal professional. We can debate the merits of that and why he may have come to that conclusion but he ultimately did. He will have a reputation to keep up. He won’t want to look stupid.

We may win. I hope we do. But the whole process is going to go through a proper grinder and we’ll see what comes out.

Maybe it’s too long supporting City, but I fear we’ll win the battle, by highlighting pretty poor processes etc, but lose the war and be found to have not abided by the rules we signed up to.

I hope I’m wrong. But that possibility is where the debate should lie.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Maybe, maybe not.

Pretty subjective.

I’d expect a guy of that standing to be at least relatively rational in his his decisions.

We have a case to answer that’s going before a group of very qualified legal professionals. We’ve got together a bunch of what looks like the best to fight our corner. We’ll need them because we’re appealing against pretty strong findings, almost unprecedented.

I’m sure we’ve got some great points. I’m also pretty convinced UEFA do too. It’ll probably come down to a few core issues that are very grey in interpretation. I hope we’re on the right side of that grey.

Here’s hoping you’re right, or your sources are.

We are appealing again UEFA's conclusions not findings, they found nothing.

They have gone after us for non-compliance, the AC have presumed to join the dots.

Incidentally, whilst the judge in question is certainly of repute, his background is Human Rights (hardly a hanging offence), he had the horn for both Qatar and Abu Dhabi, previously.

It is difficult to overstate the vested interests between the various factions within Uefa and the two chambers on FFP.

As you say, we are now going before some very qualified legal professionals, that's all we have wanted from the outset.

A fair hearing.

It would be folly for us not to recruit the best counsel for this particular case, which is as much about procedure as it is about us being able to trust the people we are submitting evidence to.

Our defence isn't about whataboutery, that's not what CAS has any interest in.

 

[GBrannan]

We’ve pointedly not disputed the content of the emails, but continually said that they’ve been taken out of context.

I would’ve thought the context being that they’re not really telling the whole truth/ picture.

It’s hard to deny we’re close to the wind. I’d expect all clubs in our position are. We’re needing to be whiter than white though, which is ironic given the way such investigations are seemingly targeted against our owners, because we’re in the glare of of a bitter old top 3 media that’s taking away revenue... coupled with our newly acquainted friends in Europe taking a passing interest in how we operate for the same reasons.

 

[Ric]

Agreed, stakes are v high. Although the covid lockdown situation has taken the edge off the whole business, for me anyway. Instead of being 100% anxious about the outcome, I’d say it’s probably only about 85%. I mean, it’s important, but it’s only football, y’know. And our club will still be there for me to support, whatever.

Yes, the pandemic has changed my perspective a fair bit. Football really isn’t that important at the moment in the scheme of things. Even if we were to get a reduced one season ban (which still seems the most probable outcome to me), then for it to fall in a year when fans aren’t likely to be able to watch games anyway would lessen the blow a bit.

 

[GBrannan]

It’s interesting that people are concerned that uefa are represented by qualified legal professionals when uefa are asking those very professionals, whom they appointed and instructed to act within uefa guidelines, to try, and to judge a case where they are required to apply, not the law, in which they have been trained and are experienced, but uefa’s own set of regulations which appear, in the eyes of many, to be unlawful in respect of European law.
This was surely the salient lesson of the Bosman ruling

Maybe.

That process seems like something we’re going to look at for sure.

It looks like a very stacked deck. Not seemingly fit for purpose etc. But, a due process was observed and it seems like they do, at least sometimes, stack up at CAS.

In recent times, it looks like we’re going to go all in like no one else could or would. The stakes are then obviously high. As City Xtra put, it really is City v UEFA.

 

[mrbelfry]

My hope is that we didn’t fully comply with the investigation as we knew that they would find us guilty regardless, so have withheld evidence for the CAS hearing in pursuit of total exoneration. Might be wishful thinking, but who knows. Going to be fascinating to see how this plays out anyway, especially as the stakes are so high.

If we have withheld evidence that would help their charge that we didn't cooperate. However the earlier CAS hearing where we argue the process was unfair and leaky might be our defence of that

 

[Proy]

Yes, the pandemic has changed my perspective a fair bit. Football really isn’t that important at the moment in the scheme of things. Even if we were to get a reduced one season ban (which still seems the most probable outcome to me), then for it to fall in a year when fans aren’t likely to be able to watch games anyway would lessen the blow a bit.

Could you explain Ric, why you believe a reduced 1 year sentence is a probable outcome, what are you basing this on?

Genuine question. What have we done wrong?

 

[mrbelfry]

Ok - been fairly busy recently what with all that’s going on, so taking an hour to try and catch up on stuff - I see we have the dates now for the hearing, but anyone willing to give a Blinkist version of the thread for the last couple of weeks please ?

Sure. We have a date for the hearing now. Karen and Domothingy are meeting behind the back of Mary D's on June 8th to sort it out. No blades.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Stakes are so high for both sides that it wouldn't surprise me if CAS duck the issue we get nothing definitive and have to go to Swiss /Euro courts.

 

[BAB.DAB]

Sure. We have a date for the hearing now. Karen and Domothingy are meeting behind the back of Mary D's on June 8th to sort it out. No blades.

Handbags at dawn

 

[GBrannan]

We are appealing again UEFA's conclusions not findings, they found nothing.

They have gone after us for non-compliance, the AC have presumed to join the dots.

Incidentally, whilst the judge in question is certainly of repute, his background is Human Rights (hardly a hanging offence), he had the horn for both Qatar and Abu Dhabi, previously.

It is difficult to overstate the vested interests between the various factions within Uefa and the two chambers on FFP.

As you say, we are now going before some very qualified legal professionals, that's all we have wanted from the outset.

A fair hearing.

It would be folly for us not to recruit the best counsel for this particular case, which is as much about procedure as it is about us being able to trust the people we are submitting evidence to.

Our defence isn't about whataboutery, that's not what CAS has any interest in.

Absolutely. We should hire the absolute best, as many as we can, because if we don’t UEFA might.

The stakes are very high. A Covid-19 world raised it up again no doubt. Both City and UEFA will have other, new pressing stuff on their mind.

I just hope we’ve judged our process through a prism of objectivity... where those highly skilled people of ours, at the centre of this that were compromised, have been moved to the side so that we’re pursuing all merits of this case against solid foundations and not because of a want to mend wounded pride.

I am sure we’re confident compared to how we felt UEFA we’re going to treat us. However, how much wriggle room we really have will soon be shown.

Personally I’d happily get out out of this on the 5 year/ time thing as long as the rest doesn’t stick to mean any sanctions.

Not guilty should be our first aim. ‘Why’ should be secondary. There’s plenty in the news for the foreseeable as to why the whys and wherefores wouldn’t be a concern and hang over us!

 

[Ric]

Could you explain Ric, why you believe a reduced 1 year sentence is a probable outcome, what are you basing this on?

Genuine question. What have we done wrong?

Just a hunch, really. Probable was maybe not the right word.

 

[Proy]

Just a hunch, really. Probable was maybe not the right word.

I think the majority of posts like that are based on a hunch. Probably arrives from previous cases UEFA have had to go to CAS with. There is limited information for your average Joe Bloggs, and it's why I greatly appreciate the insight we get on here from Colin and Tolmie. Those people, it would seem, are a little closer to the fire. Certainly PB who is in contact with some important people within the club, and this is his area of expertise.

That said, I do think the idea about certain individuals leaving in cuffs after this is done, is somewhat far fetched. However, from the information he has given, I would develop a hunch that suggests we will could well win this case.

Lack of cooperation isn't enough to justify any ban at all, let alone 2 years. And if we can prove the source of our sponsorship then that would surely put us in a strong position.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Maybe.

That process seems like something we’re going to look at for sure.

It looks like a very stacked deck. Not seemingly fit for purpose etc. But, a due process was observed and it seems like they do, at least sometimes, stack up at CAS.

In recent times, it looks like we’re going to go all in like no one else could or would. The stakes are then obviously high. As City Xtra put, it really is City v UEFA.

I keep coming back to it , but the Bosman case demonstrates just how arrogant and downright wrong uefa could be.
I’m sure they approached that case supremely confident that they were going to succeed, supported by the views of various expensive ‘legal experts’ that this was the case, only to be given a rude awakening by a relatively unknown Belgian footballer and his relatively unknown lawyer, who showed that the properly constituted law, not uefa’s notions of ‘what’s best for football according to us’ applies.
In fact , that is what the ECJ pointed out to uefa in no uncertain terms.

 

[Proy]

We’ve been the whipping boys for years when it comes to facing charges. Fair enough, we might have something on them, but as serious as their officials being led off in handcuffs? Can’t see it myself.

Yes. Definitely a little out there.

I do believe that we have some dirt, though.

Like many I have no clue what that would look like, but the clubs in question and people involved are certainly far from whiter than white.