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.
Loads of new posts to read from today, but can somebody tell me if Pannick is not there and why?
 
lancs blue said:
I doubt it, both parties have to sign up to strict confidentialty clauses once CAS agree to hear an appeal. CAS took issue with UEFA at the first appeal for leaks during the IC investigation.
Click to expand...
Let's see. Members of the UEFA IC (and probably AC as well) have leaked details of confidential information relentlessly throughout the FFP investigations process. That is a a pattern seen in everything they are involved in. The most recent case being the leaking to the New York Times about the switch of venues to Lisbon for this year's CL final. Don't forget we are dealing here with corrupt people who will do anything to further their cause. That said these leaks have been self-defeating and you are right that CAS have marked their card.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Let's see. Members of the UEFA IC (and probably AC as well) have leaked details of confidential information relentlessly throughout the FFP investigations process. That is a a pattern seen in everything they are involved in. The most recent case being the leaking to the New York Times about the switch of venues to Lisbon for this year's CL final. Don't forget we are dealing here with corrupt people who will do anything to further their cause. That said these leaks have been self-defeating and you are right that CAS have marked their card.
Click to expand...
It's noticeable that since CAS agreed to hear City's appeal over the sanction that there's has been little from "UEFA sources", just speculation in the media, as seen by the FT article the other day having to rehash "inside info" from UEFA which dated back to February.
 
petrusha said:
I have less of a regard for the likely accuracy of a David Conn piece than others on here for reasons I've expounded on at length elsewhere, and think his assertion that UEFA has been deemed a related party might derive from an assumption on his part that this must be so given the PwC advice to such effect. IMO, other information in the public domain suggests his assumption could be misplaced.

I take the view that City's settlement agreement is very likely to have dealt with the issue of which parties are related an which aren't for the sake of certainty going forward, and have two points in that regard:

1) If Etisalat and Aarbar (and it's stretching the bounds of credulity to suggest that these aren't the two 'second-tier sponsorships referred to in the 2014 UEFA press release) were deemed related parties, why were they specifically dealt with in the settlement agreement? That makes no sense to me when UEFA could easily have adjusted the fair values of the sponsorships for FFP purposes.

2). I don't see it as credible, in the light of the leaked information as to why PwC were alleging related party relationships with the Abu Dhabi sponsors, that Etihad would have been deemed a related party if Etisalat and Aarbar weren't.

So I remain dubious regarding Conn's assertion. I suspect UEFA will be likely arguing that City have stated that Etihad is an unrelated party, yet it was receiving funds from City's owner to divert into the club under the guise of the sponsorship contract. I'm sceptical that the original UEFA stance on the relayed party point can really help us by being regarded as a material issue now.

As to the point that one can spin a lot of these arguments two ways - yes, of course. People are desperate for issues such as this to be black and white. In fact, in pretty well all disputes that are litigated there are arguments on both sides and the court or arbitral tribunal decides on balance whose arguments they find more persuasive.

Obviously, I hope in this case it's ours. But assessing the likelihood of the respective sides prevailing is basically just a huge guess at the moment because no one knows what evidence they're both putting forward.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to be honest my guess is that Conn has got wind that City and UEFA disagreed about whether Etihad was a related party or not (he probably got that info off here!) and has made the leap that UEFA officially classed it as a related party deal when, as you suggest, it never got that far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top