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

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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

What would be UEFA’s (under pressure from the cartel) motivation for settling? I can’t see that they’d have one to be honest. We’re the ones with our feet to the fire

 

[slbsn]

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.

Thats fair comment. But I think you can get the impression that in most CAS cases the lawyers push both those technical points and "actual innocence" (substantive merits). And that impression would be right - City like every CAS challenge will look at the rules themselves, jurisdiction and the substantive matters (ie did City really only get £8m from Etihad). Perhaps some people think we are going to struggle on the substantive given the face of the emails. You are obviously correct that we have no idea how much emphasis we are putting on one vs the other though - that is pure speculation.

 

[slbsn]

What would be UEFA’s (under pressure from the cartel) motivation for settling? I can’t see that they’d have one to be honest. We’re the ones with our feet to the fire

A scalp, certainty, no criticism in the judgment, an end of legal action and risk of higher challenge, justification for the actions of the IC and AC despite City's protestations, significant cash to the bottom line in a year when the Euros got cancelled (although I can't recall how it is split) ...should I go on?

 

[WRicko]

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 dont know what gives you that Idea most of the possible in the know people on here feel like we are trying to prove our innocence in much stronger terms than that in any event even if it was only a technical let off if your let off your let off cannot be got again and again

 

[Paladin]

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

Where do sarcasm and repetitive sarcasm rank?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

A scalp, certainty, no criticism in the judgment, an end of legal action and risk of higher challenge, justification for the actions of the IC and AC despite City's protestations, significant cash to the bottom line in a year when the Euros got cancelled (although I can't recall how it is split) ...should I go on?

No, but you yourself have said you don’t think further legal action from City would be successful anyway, and presumably UEFA’s lawyers would be singing from the same hymn sheet, and quite honestly do any of those plus points measure up when set alongside appeasing the cartel and averting the possibility of a breakaway super league?
I think the appointment of the new rag/dipper approved PL CEO, the announcement of the CL revamp with a qualifying period designed to exclude us, and the 2 year ban, are all component parts of the same game, which is to destroy us totally and utterly as a threat, not just in the short term, but permanently, and I don’t think obtaining justification for the actions of the IC and the AC, or taking a scalp, will be significant motivators for UEFA at all. Their prime motivator is doing what the cartel want and being allowed to continue to wield nominal authority over the European game as a result

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Where do sarcasm and repetitive sarcasm rank?

Lower than an invite to Queen Anne’s wake.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Where do sarcasm and repetitive sarcasm rank?

Great post, mate.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Where do sarcasm and repetitive sarcasm rank?

Great post, mate.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Great post, mate.

It was such a brilliant, insightful post.

 

[slbsn]

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]

Triggered by a good reply on Twitter I relooked at the conclusion of this CAS case. I had thought that the Panel had waived the point through on the audit - in fact it looks like they found a way to dodge the question - I have amended the original post - this is the key section.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

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.”

I've only skimmed the first document but in addition to the other replies the author has a specific bugbear about City re the spirit of the rules and the related party definition.

He has missed that UEFA are using IA24 and recommends a SEC alternative instead which would in his opinion catch City/Etihad as related parties.

He also has missed that the Etihad deal was not too far away from the Octagon valuation for PWC and broadly FMV.

Additionaly, he is oblivious to the UEFA rule change in summer 2015 re owners injecting money into their club. Bearing in mind the document was written in 2018 that is a big fail IMO. The key part of the rule change impacting City from 15/16 (assuming all Abu Dhabi sponsors are not treated as related in the accounts) are as follows: "Under the impacted regulations any entity that alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government represent more than 30% of the clubs total revenues is automatically considered a related party"

He can go to hell with the "spirit of the rules" crap - it us up to the rulemaker to change the rules if there is a weakness. And in any case UEFA have adjusted the rules to put a potential cap on Abu Dhabi sponsorships.

As an aside, in Mediapart's coverage of the leaks, they mention UEFA wrote to City in September 2015 reminding them of the new 30% rule .

 

[horlock_was_super]

Where do sarcasm and repetitive sarcasm rank?

Somewhere in between, perhaps? Mezzanine?

 

[KS55]

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

@Prestwich_Blue would be the best target. After all, according to one of the twitterati, he is 'mad'. I forget which arse said that.

 

[KS55]

No, but you yourself have said you don’t think further legal action from City would be successful anyway, and presumably UEFA’s lawyers would be singing from the same hymn sheet, and quite honestly do any of those plus points measure up when set alongside appeasing the cartel and averting the possibility of a breakaway super league?
I think the appointment of the new rag/dipper approved PL CEO, the announcement of the CL revamp with a qualifying period designed to exclude us, and the 2 year ban, are all component parts of the same game, which is to destroy us totally and utterly as a threat, not just in the short term, but permanently, and I don’t think obtaining justification for the actions of the IC and the AC, or taking a scalp, will be significant motivators for UEFA at all. Their prime motivator is doing what the cartel want and being allowed to continue to wield nominal authority over the European game as a result

They will never destroy us. HH (!)and Khaldoon won't give up.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It was such a brilliant, insightful post.

Stop nicking my material.

 

[KS55]

Triggered by a good reply on Twitter I relooked at the conclusion of this CAS case. I had thought that the Panel had waived the point through on the audit - in fact it looks like they found a way to dodge the question - I have amended the original post - this is the key section.

That dodging of the question augurs well for us, backs up your earlier belief that CAS would be reluctant to make such a serious allegation inherent in their decision.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.”

I found this quote on p.75.

“While UEFA eventually sanctioned Manchester City for failing the break- even analysis,170 UEFA found the sponsorship deal with Etihad to not be a related party transaction, therefore, the value did not necessitate scrutiny.”

I had thought the matter of whether Etihad was a related party had been left unresolved due to the settlement? If the quote above is accurate, where does that then leave us?

 

[SilverFox2]

I've only skimmed the first document but in addition to the other replies the author has a specific bugbear about City re the spirit of the rules and the related party definition.

He has missed that UEFA are using IA24 and recommends a SEC alternative instead which would in his opinion catch City/Etihad as related parties.

He also has missed that the Etihad deal was not too far away from the Octagon valuation for PWC and broadly FMV.

Additionaly, he is oblivious to the UEFA rule change in summer 2015 re owners injecting money into their club. Bearing in mind the document was written in 2018 that is a big fail IMO. The key part of the rule change impacting City from 15/16 (assuming all Abu Dhabi sponsors are not treated as related in the accounts) are as follows: "Under the impacted regulations any entity that alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government represent more than 30% of the clubs total revenues is automatically considered a related party"

He can go to hell with the "spirit of the rules" crap - it us up to the rulemaker to change the rules if there is a weakness. And in any case UEFA have adjusted the rules to put a potential cap on Abu Dhabi sponsorships.

As an aside, in Mediapart's coverage of the leaks, they mention UEFA wrote to City in September 2015 reminding them of the new 30% rule .

Good post, thanks for your views.
I identify with the "spirit of the rules" comment and in fact would include why their version of FFP was brought in if the "spirit of competitive football" is to be observed.

 

[slbsn]

I found this quote on p.75.

“While UEFA eventually sanctioned Manchester City for failing the break- even analysis,170 UEFA found the sponsorship deal with Etihad to not be a related party transaction, therefore, the value did not necessitate scrutiny.”

I had thought the matter of whether Etihad was a related party had been left unresolved due to the settlement? If the quote above is accurate, where does that then leave us?

I think its wrong - he's relying on Swiss Ramble. Conn's well briefed article on 22 Jan 2020 said it was considered related but as we settled it was a moot point. But we don't know for sure.