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

[City_Sean]

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.

My biggest concern now is regardless of whether we win, are we not at risk of PL punishment regarding these kind of dealings we've done?

It feels like we're pushing for technical wins as opposed to our actual innocence?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

It probably isn't.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

This is absolutely right.

Although we've won 6 out of 7 of the last domestic trophies on offer, the football competition in this Country is nowhere as bad as in places like the Bundesliga and Ligue 1. And we won because of Pep and his amazing football, not any other reasons. Getting rid of FFP will allow other clubs to find investors to keep the league interesting. UEFA just don't understand the true effects of FFP and/or it's a thinly veiled attempt at pleasing the cartel.

They understand what FFP and its affect mean . Cartel dictates the operation.

 

[laserblue]

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

I take it Americans are not counted as 'foreign investors' because they have white skins.

 

[laserblue]

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

Typical response from a drunk small claims solicitor ;)

 

[DrBlueBob]

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

Or perhaps even unexpected.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Or perhaps even unexpected.

That too.

 

[M18CTID]

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]

Interesting for sure, but all cases are different and it’s irrelevant to our case if we can provide the “irrefutable evidence” to prove there was no wrongdoing on our part.

 

[Citizen Green]

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.

We take this view that City have not settled, but playing devils advocate, what’s to say we have actually attempted to (using CAS to exert pressure) & UEFA have been so confident in their position that they rebuffed us?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I take it Americans are not counted as 'foreign investors' because they have white skins.

Yes. It was interesting to read that the Council of Europe was concerned about "foreign investment" in football (does that mean non-European investment). It's that old Alf Garnett chestnut: "I've got nothing against foreigners, some of my best friends are black.......but....."

 

[DrBlueBob]

That too.

Good spot, it's often only medical types that see the signs.

 

[slbsn]

We take this view that City have not settled, but playing devils advocate, what’s to say we have actually attempted to (using CAS to exert pressure) & UEFA have been so confident in their position that they rebuffed us?

In that case, I think we will probably not succeed. It would invert my view.

 

[slbsn]

Interesting for sure, but all cases are different and it’s irrelevant to our case if we can provide the “irrefutable evidence” to prove there was no wrongdoing on our part.

As I said in the post "all cases turn on the individual facts"

 

[slbsn]

My biggest concern now is regardless of whether we win, are we not at risk of PL punishment regarding these kind of dealings we've done?

It feels like we're pushing for technical wins as opposed to our actual innocence?

I don't think so. But it is not impossible depending on what the judgment says. Another reason why settlement is often preferable

 

[HelloCity]

My biggest concern now is regardless of whether we win, are we not at risk of PL punishment regarding these kind of dealings we've done?

It feels like we're pushing for technical wins as opposed to our actual innocence?

You have no idea what City are pushing for. Non of us do. Don’t base your judgement on what you’ve heard from City fans.

 

[slbsn]

You have no idea what City are pushing for. Non of us do. Don’t base your judgement on what you’ve heard from City fans.

It's a very odd concept to go on a discussion board and object to people having discussions. We all know its largely (but not complete) speculation and the discussion is happening on that basis.

 

[journolud]

Perhaps UEFA could sue CAS while they're there?

Yes but then CAS would sue us and I’d probably sue @Prestwich_Blue and @tolmie's hairdoo for good measure

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

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.

I read the article and had not got very far at all before the "Americanism" of the article was glaringly obvious. I could have written the parts that dealt with the Etihad sponsorship for him and while I couldn't perhaps have predicted with absolute precision his conclusions, they were obvious in that they would amount to no more than harsher penalties for transgressors. Your Google research confirms that this is yet another "study" of FFP which accepts UEFA's motives for the introduction of FFP as complete and above question, which assumes that the legal framework in Europe is as it is in the USA and apparently decides that UEFA is entirely within its rights to decide what a related party deal is and how much "fair value" is. Needless to say he doesn't bother with the problem of debt. I'm afraid that I did conceive an abiding dislike of the author as I read on, and only skimmed parts so I hope I'm not being unfair to him but I thought it was a very poor article which showed a total lack of understanding of the problems facing football (as exemplified by Bayern's magnificent umpteenth successive title win) and FFP's failure to deal with many of them in a manner fair to all. One such problem is the claim that FFP allows "sustainable" investment on infrastructure, whereas it actually restricts it just as effectively as it restricts investment on players. Interest on loans taken out to pay for such investment are, I believe, included in the break even calculation and this again relates it to turnover. FFP is concerned with nothing but spending.

 

[HelloCity]

It's a very odd concept to go on a discussion board and object to people having discussions. We all know its largely (but not complete) speculation and the discussion is happening on that basis.

You’re coming in from the wrong angle again.

“It feels like we're pushing for technical wins as opposed to our actual innocence?”

I’m referring to this sentence. He has no idea what angle City are pushing for because he wasn’t at the hearing and therefore it’s impossible to have a ‘feel’ for it.

Can we speculate based on what we know? Of course, and I’ve never suggested otherwise but we obviously can’t get a ‘feel’ for what happened and from what angle.

It’d be like me saying about tonight’s game ‘I feel we’re forcing it and are relying too much on crosses’ without me having seen the match.

 

[KS55]

Interesting for sure, but all cases are different and it’s irrelevant to our case if we can provide the “irrefutable evidence” to prove there was no wrongdoing on our part.

There's the rub. No doubt we have pushed the rules hard. Did we cross a technical line somewhere, enough for Cas to rule against us?