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

[Colin Bells Boots]

When United were going to breach player pay limits 2 years ago, Gill and co quickly got rid of the limitations.
I cannot see how any clubs who have the power and money altering rules to level the playing field.
At the same time other leagues are attempting to overtake the premier league as number 1.
It may be short term thinking, but hasn't it always been thus.

Clearly having a bent fucker as part of the inner circle is advantagous to " adjust " the rules at the drop of a hat.

 

[asahartford1]

Clearly having a bent fucker as part of the inner circle is advantagous to " adjust " the rules at the drop of a hat.

It is proving crucial for Rags, scouse, Bayern, madrid, juve and psg.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

It is proving crucial for Rags, scouse, Bayern, madrid, juve and psg.

And why, even if we are successful at CAS , still have a massive job on our hands trying to keep the jackals in check.

 

[ancoats]

The problem is, the first club to do this, and put the money in the piggy bank for a rainy day, would need that money as they went to the lower reaches of the league.
It could not be done unilaterally.

maybe so ? but the football governing bodies should be looking after the game not the clubs. the future of the game is built on sand and the foundations could be ripped up with a pandemic and a killer virus like covid-19. clubs need to start looking after themselves and not asking for help or loans ? and they have been able to run up big debts and having £550 million by one club is not healthy for the game

FFP is a joke and shows what it really is setup for ? its simple a tool to stop manchester city. how can a uefa board or committee be made up of members from clubs that are in so much debt and then say to manchester city. sorry your banned because you have no debt and making a profit and owners willing to put their own wealth into football

 

[hihosilva]

i have just had a read of the Der Spiegal- Manchester City exposed a global empire. It really is unbelievable tosh!!
Once this CAS saga is over the first thing City should do is sue these bastards for libal.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

maybe so ? but the football governing bodies should be looking after the game not the clubs. the future of the game is built on sand and the foundations could be ripped up with a pandemic and a killer virus like covid-19. clubs need to start looking after themselves and not asking for help or loans ? and they have been able to run up big debts and having £550 million by one club is not healthy for the game

FFP is a joke and shows what it really is setup for ? its simple a tool to stop manchester city. how can a uefa board or committee be made up of members from clubs that are in so much debt and then say to manchester city. sorry your banned because you have no debt and making a profit and owners willing to put their own wealth into football

I don't think it is exclusively to stop City, but any other club which threatens the status and financial power of the G14 clubs.

Newcastle if they were to become successful post takeover would be targetted as well.

 

[Parisian]

The ridiculous concept is that the fair value of the contract was £8m. Not what you wrote.

What you wrote is UEFA's argument. I say, even if true, you have to look at the contract and the audit. They both say (as have Etihad itself) that City had a contract with Etihad for £67m pa which only Etihad was legally responsible for. How Etihad got the funds is not in itself City's business. UEFA are entitled to ask whether Etihad is a related party. Clearly if Etihad is being funded by City's ultimate parent it is strong evidence that it is related. If it is related (and we know UEFA conclude IT WAS (City protested)) then you have to look at whether it was market value. We know UEFA concluded it was market value. In other words, it was irrelevant whether it was related or not. I'm afraid this has to be final time I try and explain this point here. Also note, we may not succeed with that argument, I may well be wrong and it may not even make sense in writing.

The problem here is UEFA consistency. They have already shown they can come back on their agreed fair value market if they want.

It is evident that Eithad deal can't be realistically valued at £8M.

 

[91:23]

even City have arrangements where they take payment from the bank secured against future prize money and TV income, it's part of business especially when your revenue streams and timings aren't constant.

Correct but we dont life hand to mouth and rely on these

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Correct but we dont life hand to mouth and rely on these

No, but you can see why we are happy for the season to continue so the full monies are received as we've already secured them.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

His surname was Amesbury,lived there till mid 70's and left the area and the country for awhile,trained as a chef initially Handforth/Wilmslow way.Think his Mam still lived there for a while,lost touch as I moved out of M14,currently exiled in Lobby gobbler land

I wasn't born until 74 mate, let me tell you Lowthorpe and the surrounding were purged of any red interlopers by my street urchin crew.

Imagine the Krays but without the sartorial elegance.

 

[DelToro]

His surname was Amesbury,lived there till mid 70's and left the area and the country for awhile,trained as a chef initially Handforth/Wilmslow way.Think his Mam still lived there for a while,lost touch as I moved out of M14,currently exiled in Lobby gobbler land

I know him.

 

[slbsn]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...


https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas


MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

The author is a junior barrister and does not appear to be a sports specialist. That is not to say he is wrong or unqualified but it is relevant.

The article does highlight though why this is a dangerous time for the club and why I would advocate settling unless City have such confidence in their position that settling is unpalatable. The position he takes are definitely arguable points.

That said, I disagree with Football Law on the points above. If you have been following closely most of the article is nothing new and the key passage is this one you have copied on p15.

Football Law says he thinks both the 5 year limit point and the "release" argument are "misjudged".

In support on the 5 year limit point, he refers to the Rubin Kazan case http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/5977.pdf (paras 89-100) to support his assertion the mere "opening of proceedings" is sufficient to stop time from running. Incidentally, it is a case where Dr Jan Kliener also acted for UEFA (apparently the "A team" and who is acting for UEFA on City). I disagree that Rubin Kazan is a good precedent on the point and UEFA were obviously right in their arguments at CAS. Indeed, in Rubin Kazan, the club had not exited the Settlement Regime.

Critically, Rubin Kazan never satisfied or complied with their Settlement Agreement - they made a half-hearted argument based on the season ending. But this is weak. City on the other hand definitively did exit the Settlement Regime and the a Letter of Release was issued. Football Law's point that opening the investigation in March 2019 was sufficient to meet the 5 year limit is not really made out.

This is not what the Rubin Kazan case says nor what R37 states: "Prosecution is barred after five years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations."

Now if UEFA's case is actually that City breached its 2014 Settlement Agreement and therefore it is ripping up the ending of the Settlement Regime then that could potentially keep it within the 5 years. In my mind, a more natural reading of R37 is that the limit is 5 years from the breach itself – ie the transaction or transactions that were the breaches. As I have said, I believe that breaches prior to May 2014 or even taking Football Law 's point on the commencement of an investigation before March 2014, are barred. Most of the alleged breaches occurred before this date and therefore, I would be arguing they are time barred.

Football Law's analysis would mean in essence that UEFA could investigate breaches from many many years ago. The logical inference of FootballLaw’s view would mean breaches in the 2011/12 period (covered in the May 2014 Settlement) could be re-evaluated 5 years from the exiting of the Settlement Regime in April 2017 ie any time before April 2022. With respect to Football Law that just can't be right.

He then argues “Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.” Reference 12 is missing. I don’t agree with the application of that legal principle here either - I'd like to see a CAS case where this was applied if relevant. If he was right, City could be liable for the next 50 years.

I do agree with Football Law on the proportionality of the sanction. I think if CAS refuse the appeal, 2 years looks proportionate – it would be a very serious contravention and has elements of deceit and concealment which are obvious aggravating factors.

 

[BigJoe#1]

No other league has 3 prime cartel clubs.

Spain possibly?

Real Madrid
Atletico Madrid and
Barcelona?

Italy maybe?

Juventus
Inter Milan and
AC Milan?

Possibly?

 

[mccity]

Spain possibly?

Real Madrid
Atletico Madrid and
Barcelona?

Italy maybe?

Juventus
Inter Milan and
AC Milan?

Possibly?

Atlético, Inter, and AC Milan can't really be considered cartel clubs in this day and age.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

To back up Ric's posting of yesterday, without getting too carried away.

A contact has stated this afternoon a hearing which was extremely respectful and also 'very positive'.

I have not spoken to Ric and can be 100 per cent confident this is from a separate source.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

To back up Ric's posting of yesterday, without getting too carried away.

A contact has stated this afternoon a hearing which was extremely respectful and also 'very positive'.

I have not spoken to Ric and can be 100 per cent confident this is from a separate source.

Fingers crossed that we get the outcome we are hoping for.

 

[Rammy Blue]

To back up Ric's posting of yesterday, without getting too carried away.

A contact has stated this afternoon a hearing which was extremely respectful and also 'very positive'.

I have not spoken to Ric and can be 100 per cent confident this is from a separate source.

No video?

 

[SidJames]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas

MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

The Author is putting his own slant on a case,that in reality he knows fuck all about.

He likely knows as much,if not less than our resident experts.

How does he know what parts of the UEFA Case City Barristers were challenging anyway ?.

If our Case had been open to interpretation in the way he suggests.Then in my opinion we would not have even taken the risk in going to CAS and would have cut a deal with UEFA when we had the chance.No matter how unpalatable the deal was.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

No video?

 

[ancoats]

I don't think it is exclusively to stop City, but any other club which threatens the status and financial power of the G14 clubs.

Newcastle if they were to become successful post takeover would be targetted as well.

but the rules was changed just because of manchester city new owners ? PSG was 2 to 3 years behind city in terms of ownership and from the first season to winning the premier league in 2012 the elite wanted us stopped