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.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Appellant

49. MCFC provided the following summary of its written submissions:

➢ "MCFC submits this Appeal against the Referral Decision and Leaks Decision of the IC. In short:


(a) the Referral Decision and Leaks Decision are both final decisions of the IC and therefore within the scope of CAS’s jurisdiction;

(b) the IC exceeded its jurisdiction in making the Referral Decision;

(c) UEFA has systematically breached, and continues to breach, its duty of confidence; CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 11

(d) the Referral Decision was made improperly and prematurely, while the Investigation was still ongoing, despite the fact that the IC is only empowered to make a decision to refer a case at the end of an Investigation;

(e) the Investigation and the Decision lacked procedural fairness and due process; and

(f) the Decision and the Leaks have caused, and continue to cause


The above is taken from CAS last year which was deemed premature but I would expect this is how City's legal team are approaching the case this week.
 
Shaelumstash said:
With that being the case, why did City argue against PwC’s suggestion that Etihad is a related party?

What did we stand to gain?
Click to expand...
City argued PwC were wrong on everything...but settled anyway https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-and-psg-pact-with-the-sheikhs-a-1236414.html

"The PwC Report is seriously flawed in that it contains numerous erroneous interpretations of the Regulations, false assumptions of fact, errors of law and erroneous conclusions," read the reply. The lawyers demanded that the PwC auditors revise or delete large sections of their report. PwC refused, which further enraged the Manchester City attorneys.
 
hihosilva said:
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Appellant

49. MCFC provided the following summary of its written submissions:

➢ "MCFC submits this Appeal against the Referral Decision and Leaks Decision of the IC. In short:


(a) the Referral Decision and Leaks Decision are both final decisions of the IC and therefore within the scope of CAS’s jurisdiction;

(b) the IC exceeded its jurisdiction in making the Referral Decision;

(c) UEFA has systematically breached, and continues to breach, its duty of confidence; CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 11

(d) the Referral Decision was made improperly and prematurely, while the Investigation was still ongoing, despite the fact that the IC is only empowered to make a decision to refer a case at the end of an Investigation;

(e) the Investigation and the Decision lacked procedural fairness and due process; and

(f) the Decision and the Leaks have caused, and continue to cause


The above is taken from CAS last year which was deemed premature but I would expect this is how City's legal team are approaching the case this week.
Click to expand...

Almost none of this is relevant to CAS 2.
 
projectriver said:
City argued PwC were wrong on everything...but settled anyway https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-and-psg-pact-with-the-sheikhs-a-1236414.html

"The PwC Report is seriously flawed in that it contains numerous erroneous interpretations of the Regulations, false assumptions of fact, errors of law and erroneous conclusions," read the reply. The lawyers demanded that the PwC auditors revise or delete large sections of their report. PwC refused, which further enraged the Manchester City attorneys.
Click to expand...
I guess what I’m saying is, if SM was topping up the Etihad deal, it would have been in City’s interest to accept PwC’s suggestion that Etihad was a related party.
 
projectriver said:
We don't have it so we have to join dots. As I tried to do here...https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/ and earlier in this thread. Procedural failings at the IC and AC are now irrelevant as the CAS hearing is de novo (deal with the matter afresh)
Click to expand...

But can’t it still be raised even if we’re starting from scratch again? Apologies if I’m sounding thick here but I’d have thought we can still raise these concerns?
 
Shaelumstash said:
I guess what I’m saying is, if SM was topping up the Etihad deal, it would have been in City’s interest to accept PwC’s suggestion that Etihad was a related party.
Click to expand...

It never got that far. City rejected the PwC report but everyone agreed to disagree and settle. The key point is none of this stuff in the emails was actually new news as trumpeted. Some of the fine detail may have been unknown (certainly UEFA wouldnt have seen internal emails) but the overall picture was well understood by UEFA. Hence why, I would assert, the settlement should stand and not be undermined.
 
M18CTID said:
But can’t it still be raised even if we’re starting from scratch again? Apologies if I’m sounding thick here but I’d have thought we can still raise these concerns?
Click to expand...
We can raise whatever they like but they are not valid points. Whether the IC was right to pass to the AC is now irrelevant. Leaks will be relevant context but not material in the decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top