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

[dario2739]

Remember all the complaints from the press decrying City's dominance was ruining the game as we won 2 on the trot......not a fucking dicky bird regarding Bayerns demagoguery.
Killing the game in Germany - 8 on the bounce used to be reserved for the minor leagues of Upper Volta, which is what they are becoming like. Not seen any negative reports in the German press, are there any?
Or is it Bayerns law?

Same now with the Scousers... can you see the press whinging if they went on to dominate and win everything... would they fook!

 

[bennyboy]

Spot-on. There still a lot of apologists for FFP in the media but essentially it is destroying European football by still allowing clubs to build up huge amounts of debt while not allowing fresh internal investment from outside. The French, Italian, and now German Leagues have become jokes. Spain is really just a two-club league. If it wasn't for Chelsea and City English football would have become another one-team league with no competition for United.
I used to enjoy the Bundesliga but it's like Scotland now. Clubs who tried to challenge like Wolfsburg and Leipzig have been strangled at birth. What do German football fans really want? In theory the fans-owner model is a good idea but why turn away external investors to strengthen the league. There is nothing fair about the way Bayern operate.

City strangling Wolfsburg at birth.lol

 

[SWP's back]

This an interesting and well researched and referenced document. You can see lots of City around p73. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=njilb

What is interesting is the pre-2014 knowledge. Similarly, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...h-creative-plays-documents-show-idUKKCN1NB2S7 looks at the pre-settlement conclusions of UEFA, in particular, "UEFA investigators, in the May 2014 preliminary view report, also noted that they had found no evidence of a commercial negotiation over the deals, “leading to the conclusion that this was not an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties.”

In which case, they have no case as they deemed it fair value surely?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

This an interesting and well researched and referenced document. You can see lots of City around p73. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=njilb

What is interesting is the pre-2014 knowledge. Similarly, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...h-creative-plays-documents-show-idUKKCN1NB2S7 looks at the pre-settlement conclusions of UEFA, in particular, "UEFA investigators, in the May 2014 preliminary view report, also noted that they had found no evidence of a commercial negotiation over the deals, “leading to the conclusion that this was not an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties.”

That first article seems incredibly biased and political. It is interesting that a highly political organisation like the Council of Europe should have a say in the way European football is operated and should express concern about "foreign investments." The Council of Europe seems to have a very selective and partial view of human rights issues ie it targets the owners of City and PSG wth no mention of the G14 clubs. It all smells of institutionalised racism to me.

 

[slbsn]

That first article seems incredibly biased and political. It is interesting that a highly political organisation like the Council of Europe should have a say in the way European football is operated and should express concern about "foreign investments." The Council of Europe seems to have a very selective and partial view of human rights issues ie it targets the owners of City and PSG wth no mention of the G14 clubs. It all smells of institutionalised racism to me.

You are a quick reader! It is written by an American lawyer via Northwestern School of Law (https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-sims-1b394911b). Not sure on what basis it is biased. In any event it is interesting more as decent compilation of the useful references for those seeking a broader understanding of how we got here.

 

[laserblue]

Same now with the Scousers... can you see the press whinging if they went on to dominate and win everything... would they fook!

About as much as they did when the rags won 13 of the first 21 Premier League titles.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

This is an interesting and well researched and referenced document. You can see lots of City around p73. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=njilb

What is interesting is the pre-2014 knowledge. Similarly, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...h-creative-plays-documents-show-idUKKCN1NB2S7 looks at the pre-settlement conclusions of UEFA, in particular, "UEFA investigators, in the May 2014 preliminary view report, also noted that they had found no evidence of a commercial negotiation over the deals, “leading to the conclusion that this was not an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties.”

That all sounds like the argument for the prosecution tbh.

-------------

VI. CONCLUSION For the protection of European football, the FFP regulations needs amending to ensure winners and losers are no longer chosen by foreign investments.

2003/2004 season, Europe has seen an explosion of foreign owners investing in football clubs. With the increase of additional competition in European football, clubs have taken it upon themselves to spend at unsustainable levels in a race to the top. Because of this irresponsible spending, UEFA decided to introduce the FFP regulations.

UEFA implemented FFP to ensure responsible spending by the clubs as well as to promote and improve all aspects of the game. However, some aspects of the game, namely competition, continue to go unimproved. By closing certain loopholes exploited by the new foreign owners coming into European football, clubs can enjoy financial stability FFP looks to implement as well as a competitive sport for the clubs and fans alike. If UEFA addresses repeat offenders, the method of valuing related party transactions, and more clearly defines a related party, the sport of European football would be better off

----------------

The part in bold, is the argument AGAINST FFP surely

 

[nmc]

Thread will be imo 5000 by the time the verdict is reached

That's when everyone goes Ape 1 way or Another

But will we know who HH is by 5,000 pages?

 

[Winchester]

But will we know who HH is by 5,000 pages?

Good question !

 

[KS55]

That first article seems incredibly biased and political. It is interesting that a highly political organisation like the Council of Europe should have a say in the way European football is operated and should express concern about "foreign investments." The Council of Europe seems to have a very selective and partial view of human rights issues ie it targets the owners of City and PSG wth no mention of the G14 clubs. It all smells of institutionalised racism to me.

Agree. The constant theme of "foreign investors" seems odd in a globalised world.

 

[slbsn]

I have found an interesting case with some analogies to what seems to be at the core of the City case. In CAS 2013/A/3233 PAE Giannina 1966 v. UEFA https://arbitrationlaw.com/sites/default/files/free_pdfs/3233.pdf:

"The Investigatory Chamber recommended the Adjudicatory Chamber to refuse admission of [PAE] to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League. According to the findings of the Investigatory Chamber, [PAE] had failed to disclose the full amount of its personal debts. In addition to the contracts registered with the HFF, the Appellant had apparently “private agreements” with at least three of its employees during the reporting period under investigation. The Investigatory Chamber considered that these agreements should have been recognized in the annual financial statements of the Club, in accordance with the “fair presentation” requirement set forth in Annex VII A (3) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (edition 2012) (“the CL&FFP Regulations”). As a result, it was held that the Appellant had breached Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."

UEFA banned PAE and amongst other things claimed "the annual financial statements of [PAE] did not contain the total amounts which had been effectively paid to its employees. It further explains: “Whether the “unofficial” part of their salary has been paid or is irrelevant: if that part has been paid – but the corresponding payments are not mentioned in the accounts – the audited financial statements are inaccurate; and if that “unofficial” part has remained unpaid – but the corresponding debts are not mentioned in the account - the audited financial statements are also inaccurate.” Accordingly, the annual financial statements of [PAE] do not truly represent the situation which amounts to a breach of Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."

So this is a case where UEFA claimed a club had failed to disclose matters that made the audited accounts false. I have always considered this was in essence UEFA's case on City but found it hard to believe a CAS tribunal would be prepared to make such a serious finding.

What is interesting is that UEFA dodged the question re A47 - saying "In the case at hand, given the conclusion reached with regard to Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations, the Panel considers that the question whether the Appellant has breached Article 47 CL&FFP may remain undecided. The mere existence of overdue payables is indeed sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League."

Obviously all cases turn on the individual facts but interesting nonetheless for the geeky readers of this thread. [GULP]

 

[red 2 hats]

I have found an interesting case with some analogies to what seems to be at the core of the City case. In CAS 2013/A/3233 PAE Giannina 1966 v. UEFA https://arbitrationlaw.com/sites/default/files/free_pdfs/3233.pdf:

"The Investigatory Chamber recommended the Adjudicatory Chamber to refuse admission of [PAE] to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League. According to the findings of the Investigatory Chamber, [PAE] had failed to disclose the full amount of its personal debts. In addition to the contracts registered with the HFF, the Appellant had apparently “private agreements” with at least three of its employees during the reporting period under investigation. The Investigatory Chamber considered that these agreements should have been recognized in the annual financial statements of the Club, in accordance with the “fair presentation” requirement set forth in Annex VII A (3) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (edition 2012) (“the CL&FFP Regulations”). As a result, it was held that the Appellant had breached Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."

UEFA banned PAE and amongst other things claimed "the annual financial statements of [PAE] did not contain the total amounts which had been effectively paid to its employees. It further explains: “Whether the “unofficial” part of their salary has been paid or is irrelevant: if that part has been paid – but the corresponding payments are not mentioned in the accounts – the audited financial statements are inaccurate; and if that “unofficial” part has remained unpaid – but the corresponding debts are not mentioned in the account - the audited financial statements are also inaccurate.” Accordingly, the annual financial statements of [PAE] do not truly represent the situation which amounts to a breach of Article 47 of the CL&FFP Regulations."

So this is a case where UEFA claimed a club had failed to disclose matters that made the audited accounts false. I have always considered this was in essence UEFA's case on City but found it hard to believe a CAS tribunal would be prepared to make such a serious finding.

In short, they did in this one dismissing the Appeal. Obviously all cases turn on the individual facts but interesting nonetheless for the geeky readers of this thread. [GULP]

So we're fucked then ?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Agree. The constant theme of "foreign investors" seems odd in a globalised world.

I had a second read of this article to check if I had been a bit harsh. In fact it is quite a nasty xenophobic piece dressed up as academic research. The conclusion of the piece is aimed directly at City and PSG and their owners while other foreign investment from, US owners for example, is not criticised.
A bit of Google research shows that the author is a North American Financier who attended a private Christian university. Perhaps he is just another person who can't escape his personal prejudices when it comes to writing about "foreign investment" from the Middle East. Mind you I should have realised his position when I saw his references for the article included Mark Ogden, Jamie Jackson, and David Conn.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not well bud.

That's sad to hear, but not altogether disappointing.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think that @andyhinch posted an update not long ago. Things don't look good I'm afraid and obviously I say that from a medical perspective.

That's sad to hear, but not altogether disappointing.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

She'll be knackered from all that furniture she makes, never stops that woman.

That's about the third time someone had made that quip in relation to Queen Anne. Repetitive humour is the lowest form of wit.

 

[KS55]

I had a second read of this article to check if I had been a bit harsh. In fact it is quite a nasty xenophobic piece dressed up as academic research. The conclusion of the piece is aimed directly at City and PSG and their owners while other foreign investment from, US owners for example, is not criticised.
A bit of Google research shows that the author is a North American Financier who attended a private Christian university. Perhaps he is just another person who can't escape his personal prejudices when it comes to writing about "foreign investment" from the Middle East. Mind you I should have realised his position when I saw his references for the article included Mark Ogden, Jamie Jackson, and David Conn.

Nail on head.
If the guy from Ineos, a British citizen, had bought City, would the piece not be different?

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

That's about the third time someone had made that quip in relation to Queen Anne. Repetitive humour is the lowest form of wit.

I don't often finish in the top three so I'll take that.

 

[slbsn]

So we're fucked then ?

No nothing has changed. My view on the outcome is based almost exclusively on the fact that City will have known all these cases and all these risks and have ploughed on and not settled. So nothing has changed for me but it is interesting to see a case where UEFA jumped a tricky call. That said the matter seems to be more a technical matter relating to the date of certain matters.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Nail on head.
If the guy from Ineos, a British citizen, had bought City, would the piece not be different?

What concerns me is how insidious this sort of toxic content is. It's easy to dismiss what's on Twitter and in the UK tabloids. But when it creeps into academic research it can be more damaging. It's probably unconscious bias from the writer but it makes you realise what we are up against.