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

[old blue]

Winner

Best of three!

 

[slbsn]

;
Good lawyers make their clients feel confident so the chances are that UEFA feel it went well for them too. That's unless we have evidence that proves UEFA have penalised us again for breeches that were dealt with the first time round, IMHO. Anything else and I reckon the decision is in the balance. The alleged dodgy sponsorship payments and whether we complied with the investigation can probably argued both ways.

No. Good lawyers are honest with their clients and tell them how it is from the start to the end.

 

[slbsn]

You really dont know anything more than anyone else I presume ?

You decide. Multiple articles and podcasts on the topic. If I'm making it up, I've made up a fair bit of content. But if you think everyone on the thread knows nothing, whats the point in reading? Start here if you can be arsed...

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1C3igVsxhynUnpKc1rGrXZ?si=oGJaS-pSQRm1pQ80SgDHmw

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

No good lawyers are honest with their clients and tell them how it is from the start to the end.

I think you’re missing some punctuation from that sentence.

 

[slbsn]

Stefan is a commercial lawyer and CEO so he knows the law. His contribution to the debate around this case has been highly illuminating and invaluable. There's little points I don't agree with him on, mainly that he maintains that UEFA won't care who funded the Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsorships, whereas I believe that's central to their case and the FFP rules.

But apart from that, he's brought more to this body of knowledge about the reopening of the case and the CAS appeal than anyone else, me included.

Just to be clear, I don't say its not central to their case - I hope it is. I say they will lose on that aspect if is their case. They can't get round the contract and cash. And it was already part of the prior settlement. So I hope thats their case.

 

[blueyorkie]

Spoke to someone pretty well connected at City earlier, and he said that the feeling within the club was that the hearing had gone really well. Could of course mean nothing, as the arbitrators have only just started their deliberations, but it sounds promising so thought it was worth sharing.

Thanks Ric, not counting chickens but might sleep better tonight

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Huge amount at stake, nothing is certain, commerciality. Of course, we haven't which suggests we are very confident (or less likely IMO, UEFA didn't want to deal). As for refusing to take a fine, that was close to negligent and a misjudgment in my mind. No good reason to gamble like this for the sake of a small payment (assuming it was).

I think we were unwise in not agreeing that Etihad & the other AD sponsors were related parties under FFP. This case couldn't have been brought if we had.

The thing is, UEFA have always maintained that the two chambers are independent of the secretariat. Ceferin himself said that it was out of his control yet felt he could offer us a sweetheart deal. Kind of makes a mockery of the claim about the claims of the independence of the Investigatory & Adjudicatory Chambers. What particularly struck me was the vehemence in Omar Berrada's voice when he told us about the offer. He's a very understated guy normally but you could see the anger in him about this case. The club seem to be very convinced of their innocence and also the paucity of UEFA's case. I hope their faith is justified.

 

[slbsn]

Thanks a bunch.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1C3igVsxhynUnpKc1rGrXZ?si=oGJaS-pSQRm1pQ80SgDHmw - there is a full version but its behind a paywall. Earlier articles and pods are here (scroll down in the article if you want to listen rather than read).
https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

 

[slbsn]

So in stefan's opinion, what is the allegation that UEFA has made against us?

Start here https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

 

[slbsn]

I think you’re missing some punctuation from that sentence.

Funny how much difference it makes. Fixed

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Spoke to someone pretty well connected at City earlier, and he said that the feeling within the club was that the hearing had gone really well. Could of course mean nothing, as the arbitrators have only just started their deliberations, but it sounds promising so thought it was worth sharing.

Always beware the nodding juror.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

No good lawyers are honest with their clients and tell them how it is from the start to the end.

I am thinking of cases that can go one way or the other and based on my experience it is good skill for lawyers to convey optimism. The lawyers I have worked with / known do this. I agree that it is wrong to give false hope and a good lawyer wouldn't do this.

Fingers crossed that Ric's contact has read the signals well and we've got at least a fighting chance of success.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Just to be clear, I don't say its not central to their case - I hope it is. I say they will lose on that aspect if is their case. They can't get round the contract and cash. And it was already part of the prior settlement. So I hope thats their case.

If their case is simply the Der Spiegel emails then you could well be right.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Huge amount at stake, nothing is certain, commerciality. Of course, we haven't which suggests we are very confident (or less likely IMO, UEFA didn't want to deal). As for refusing to take a fine, that was close to negligent and a misjudgment in my mind. No good reason to gamble like this for the sake of a small payment (assuming it was).

If UEFA offered to settle with a fine and the club turned it down then you have to say they have bet the house on a total victory.

Time will tell if this was a masterstroke or foolhardiness of the highest order.

 

[hihosilva]

Very good news if the source is good. As I have said City will have a good feel for how receptive the panel was. No guarantees although I have had cases where my team said we had 100% lost by reading the reaction of the judge to what he had heard over a 6 day trial ie sometimes the lawyers are pretty sure which way its gone. Fingers crossed.

If they feel it went very well then I would be pretty confident that Uefa had nothing up their sleeve.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I fully appreciate that having been involved in litigation in the past, as they say sometimes the law’s an ass.

Your story about your car mysteriously getting stuck in first gear when you took a wrong turn into the red light district of Leeds and then offering that girl £20 for recommending a good mechanic sounded perfectly reasonable to me. The judge, on the other hand...

 

[laserblue]

Was that Izal? Horrible stuff.

One for a wipe and one for a shine. Only marginally better than newspaper squares but made for half decent tracing paper.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Wow

 

[slbsn]

I think we were unwise in not agreeing that Etihad & the other AD sponsors were related parties under FFP. This case couldn't have been brought if we had.

The thing is, UEFA have always maintained that the two chambers are independent of the secretariat. Ceferin himself said that it was out of his control yet felt he could offer us a sweetheart deal. Kind of makes a mockery of the claim about the claims of the independence of the Investigatory & Adjudicatory Chambers. What particularly struck me was the vehemence in Omar Berrada's voice when he told us about the offer. He's a very understated guy normally but you could see the anger in him about this case. The club seem to be very convinced of their innocence and also the paucity of UEFA's case. I hope their faith is justified.

I believe the Conn article. I don't believe there was a moment where we could choose to agree or not. We were posturing. Whats important in my mind is what UEFA believed and the basis before the settlement. You may be able to re-open a settlement (and I remain in doubt on that) but UEFA definitely can't reopen it to complain about things UEFA knew in 2014. No chance.

We know the club felt strongly in Winter 2019 but thats not the same as having to decide whether to settle (or try to) this weekend just gone. By then they 1) knew they were facing a 2 year ban 2) Covid has happened 3) Each parties evidence and written submissions have been shared 4) they would have very well informed legal opinions. The parameters in which the club were deciding were different. I am not saying they should have settled, I am just saying emotion and other feelings in Winter 2019 that they had done nothing wrong (which by the way is not obvious on the face of the documents) is not necessarily relevant in June 2020.

 

[dickie davies]

Spoke to someone pretty well connected at City earlier, and he said that the feeling within the club was that the hearing had gone really well. Could of course mean nothing, as the arbitrators have only just started their deliberations, but it sounds promising so thought it was worth sharing.

Mike on security, per chance?