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.
