Wish people would make up their fucking minds about why FFP was brought in.
So far it's:
Have I missed anything?
- To do with Chelsea
- As a response to the global liquidity crisis
- To ensure financial sustainability in football and the timing was completely coincidental
- To stop us
- To protect the G14
- To reduce CO2 emissions
If we win at CAS, it will be quite the feather in the cap. Would certainly put an end to the flapping on here.
Probably nothing, but, Pep was bang at it about us being 15 points clear in the Race for Champions League qualification in the after match interview. As I said, probably nothing.
missed this, is it reported anywhere?
Certainly some media figures, notably Simon Jordan, have accused us of falsifying our accounts. If we are cleared then in theory we could take action, though it would be a waste of time for us to do this.
Here are some dry and dull thoughts on a technical point that I have been pondering. I don't think it changes my conclusions overall because so much of my view on merits relies on my perception that the club remain confident. It does increase the likelihood that CAS will be forced to give a view on substantive matters of accounting. This, in turn, may explain why expert witnesses were called.
Looking at the PAE case it occurred to me how UEFA will likely argue the 5 year limitation point if City do press it. As a reminder City argued at CAS 1 that "all breaches alleged against MCFC more than five years prior to the communication of the Referral Decision to the AC are time barred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules, which prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five years ago." (https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/85/85/25/1858525_DOWNLOAD.pdf). Article 37 says "Prosecution is barred after five years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations."
So when does the "breach" takes place for which the 5 year clock starts running?
In short, UEFA will likely say that the breach occurred not when the actual contract or "suspect" transaction took place (my original thought) but when City presented what UEFA now consider the false or incomplete financial information. City submission of the false information (and not the transaction itself), they will say, was a breach of a rule (I can't see which - maybe Article 47 of the FFP Rules themselves). This, UEFA will say, gives UEFA 5 years to claim a breach from the date of that submission. So, let say City sent UEFA a 3 year appraisal for the years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 on 1 January 2017 saying "we passed", at that point City commit a potential breach and UEFA then has until 1 January 2022 to prosecute it. So, in extremis, that could mean UEFA has an opportunity to prosecute transactions that took place in July 2013 even in 2022.
UEFA's issue remains the settlement and the settlement regime which closed in April 2017 but if it is deemed that those are not conclusive or final (despite the express wording that they are "final and binding" decisions of the AC), City could well struggle to knock out the case on the limitation point as anything presented to UEFA after March 2014 (it could be May 2014 but lets say March 2014) could be said to have given rise to a breach AND be within the limitation period. UEFA could say that this includes information presented after March 2014 but which relates to periods before that period eg City's accounts for the years ended 30 June 2012/30 June 2013 - hence UEFA's announcement that City breached by overspending "between 2012 and 2016."
In the announcement UEFA made they say:
“The Adjudicatory Chamber, having considered all the evidence, has found that Manchester City Football Club committed serious breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations by overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016.”
So UEFA will be trying to show the transactions themselves are not the relevant breaches, rather that City's "false" submissions are the breaches. This buys UEFA more time to get round limitation. I can't find any other examples of this occurring but I think that is how they will argue it and could see it succeeding.
Thanks for that, it's actually made me feel even more pessimistic about this case than I normally do!!!Here are some dry and dull thoughts on a technical point that I have been pondering. I don't think it changes my conclusions overall because so much of my view on merits relies on my perception that the club remain confident. It does increase the likelihood that CAS will be forced to give a view on substantive matters of accounting. This, in turn, may explain why expert witnesses were called.
Looking at the PAE case it occurred to me how UEFA will likely argue the 5 year limitation point if City do press it. As a reminder City argued at CAS 1 that "all breaches alleged against MCFC more than five years prior to the communication of the Referral Decision to the AC are time barred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules, which prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five years ago." (https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/85/85/25/1858525_DOWNLOAD.pdf). Article 37 says "Prosecution is barred after five years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations."
So when does the "breach" takes place for which the 5 year clock starts running?
In short, UEFA will likely say that the breach occurred not when the actual contract or "suspect" transaction took place (my original thought) but when City presented what UEFA now consider the false or incomplete financial information. City's submission of the allegedly "false" information (and not the transaction itself), UEFA will say, was a breach of a rule (I can't see which - maybe Article 47 of the FFP Rules themselves). This, UEFA will say, gives UEFA 5 years to claim a breach from the date of that submission. So, lets say City sent UEFA a 3 year appraisal/submission for the years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 on 1 January 2017 saying "we passed", at that point City commit a potential breach and UEFA then has until 1 January 2022 to prosecute it. So, in extremis, that could mean UEFA has an opportunity to prosecute transactions that took place in July 2013 even in 2022.
UEFA's issue remains the settlement and the settlement regime which closed in April 2017 but if it is deemed that those are not conclusive or final (despite the express wording that they are "final and binding" decisions of the AC), City could well struggle to knock out the case on the limitation point as anything presented to UEFA after March 2014 (it could be May 2014 but lets say March 2014) could be said to have given rise to a breach AND be within the limitation period. UEFA could say that this includes information presented after March 2014 but which relates to periods before that period eg City's accounts for the years ended 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2013 - hence UEFA's announcement that City breached by overspending "between 2012 and 2016."
In the announcement UEFA made they say:
“The Adjudicatory Chamber, having considered all the evidence, has found that Manchester City Football Club committed serious breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations by overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016.”
So UEFA will be trying to show the transactions themselves are not the relevant breaches, rather that City's "false" submissions are the breaches. This buys UEFA more time to get round limitation. I can't find any other examples of this occurring but I think that is how they will argue it and could see it succeeding.
It means that UEFA's announcement is slightly misleading but nobody will care about that.
City KNOW. Remember City will have seen UEFA's written submissions before the hearing itself.Wouldn’t our lawyers know that as well if they are as good as they say? If so why not take the suppose deal we were offered?
Here are some dry and dull thoughts on a technical point that I have been pondering. I don't think it changes my conclusions overall because so much of my view on merits relies on my perception that the club remain confident. It does increase the likelihood that CAS will be forced to give a view on substantive matters of accounting. This, in turn, may explain why expert witnesses were called.
Looking at the PAE case it occurred to me how UEFA will likely argue the 5 year limitation point if City do press it. As a reminder City argued at CAS 1 that "all breaches alleged against MCFC more than five years prior to the communication of the Referral Decision to the AC are time barred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules, which prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five years ago." (https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/85/85/25/1858525_DOWNLOAD.pdf). Article 37 says "Prosecution is barred after five years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations."
So when does the "breach" takes place for which the 5 year clock starts running?
In short, UEFA will likely say that the breach occurred not when the actual contract or "suspect" transaction took place (my original thought) but when City presented what UEFA now consider the false or incomplete financial information. City's submission of the allegedly "false" information (and not the transaction itself), UEFA will say, was a breach of a rule (I can't see which - maybe Article 47 of the FFP Rules themselves). This, UEFA will say, gives UEFA 5 years to claim a breach from the date of that submission. So, lets say City sent UEFA a 3 year appraisal/submission for the years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 on 1 January 2017 saying "we passed", at that point City commit a potential breach and UEFA then has until 1 January 2022 to prosecute it. So, in extremis, that could mean UEFA has an opportunity to prosecute transactions that took place in July 2013 even in 2022.
UEFA's issue remains the settlement and the settlement regime which closed in April 2017 but if it is deemed that those are not conclusive or final (despite the express wording that they are "final and binding" decisions of the AC), City could well struggle to knock out the case on the limitation point as anything presented to UEFA after March 2014 (it could be May 2014 but lets say March 2014) could be said to have given rise to a breach AND be within the limitation period. UEFA could say that this includes information presented after March 2014 but which relates to periods before that period eg City's accounts for the years ended 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2013 - hence UEFA's announcement that City breached by overspending "between 2012 and 2016."
In the announcement UEFA made they say:
“The Adjudicatory Chamber, having considered all the evidence, has found that Manchester City Football Club committed serious breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations by overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016.”
So UEFA will be trying to show the transactions themselves are not the relevant breaches, rather that City's "false" submissions are the breaches. This buys UEFA more time to get round limitation. I can't find any other examples of this occurring but I think that is how they will argue it and could see it succeeding.
It means that UEFA's announcement is slightly misleading but nobody will care about that.
Can you retrospectively claim breaches on something you've approved and closed? Surely the breach is defined as what UEFA decided upon review was the breach, anything they didn't pick up is their failure of due diligence during the initial investigation and they've since closed?
Akin to someone being found not guilty in court but the police botched parts of the investigation, and later more revealing details are revealed but the outcome has already been established. Given UEFA's limitations, it seems a stretch to change what the breaches actually were after you've settled the period.
Just offering a counter argument.
None of this should change your confidence. All it is trying to understand what the sides may have been considering in their arguments. I wrote this one because I think UEFA have more leeway than I originally wrote, arguing its case like this but that the hurdle of proving City's audits were false is still very high.Stefan, if only you knew how much you play with my emotions on a daily basis. Time to knock this thread on the head till the announcement!
Not seen how confident you are, what is your educated percentage base?City KNOW. Remember City will have seen UEFA's written submissions before the hearing itself.
I'm merely speculating. That's why I say it changes nothing about my confidence but just clarified in my own mind so thought some people may wish to read it.
In a nutshell, it seems one of City's arguments is just that - the settlement regime was closed finally in April 2017 and that is that. Your argument re failure to check is unlikely to work if UEFA didn't know and City concealed information UNLESS the settlement is specifically said to be final even if new information comes out.
Not seen how confident you are, what is your educated percentage base?
Isn't it UEFA's responsibility to conduct a full and proper investigation in the first place? It's sticky ground for them to say we've wilfully misled them. If we've provided a level of evidence they've deemed satisfactory and then the settlement is closed, further details which change their interpretation don't really seem sufficient cause (I'm not a lawyer though).
I'm thinking more they ask for X, we provide the surface level detail which is deemed sufficient, case settled. Then B is hacked which adds detail behind the surface level outcome which is then used retrospectively to move the goal posts, even though the surface level detail is the outcome of B and was signed off by all parties.
I just honestly doubt we'd go this far if we had pulled a fast one and covered this up to UEFA. I would be misjudging people like Khaldoon if they were prepared to be so gung-ho in the face of such, in that instance, blatant wrongdoing. Hence, I think UEFA probably have enough to make a half decent argument based on what they had, but I feel overall with all the details it can't honestly stack up, it can only be made to look to stack up if presenting part of the evidence.
A set of audited accounts should be very difficult for CAS to find against based on a short hearing and limited submissions. But it seems to me, that is what UEFA need to show to win.I'm guilty of not understanding all of your recent musings although the jist of it seems to be " that UEFA would argue that City have misrepresented submissìons " . I can't understand if ( a big if ) the books of account prove that we have acted correctly , how those facts are overruled by the " misrepresentation".
I assume the signed of audited accounts are regarded as fact.