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.
Cheers for the response. I note that a lot of confidence has been based on a settlement but who is to say that UEFA actually offered one? If I was UEFA, and if I was City, then I’d be offering/conceding nothing. Both have stated, by the way this has been approached, that they are 100% sure that they have the ‘irrefutable’ evidence to succeed.No legal case is more than 70% likely to win but City must be very confident or they would have settled because the stakes are very high so say, 60%-70% confident City win. But I must stress this is based largely on the fact we haven't settled rather than the substantive arguments.
In view of the short hearing I think they've either ruled very firmly in favour of one side or very quickly declared it a matter for higher courts to rule on.Well in a nutshell, UEFA would have to go to extraordinary lengths and bring BDO into disrepute if they want to dispute they were misled about the related party nature of Etihad's sponsorship. I cannot reasonably see in a 3 day hearing and without full and through access to all of those records that that can reasonably be claimed. In fact such a claim would bring UEFA into disrepute without seriously strong evidence.
In view of the short hearing I think they've either ruled very firmly in favour of one side or very quickly declared it a matter for higher courts to rule on.
Fair enough - I had it in my head that it was scheduled for longer. Also I suppose going to another / higher court is down to the losing side rather than CAS, so see what you mean there.I disagree with all of that.
The hearing length was defined before the hearing. I don't think it suggests anything other than that the case was on very few points of contention for the matter to be decided on.
I can't visualise anything where CAS send anything to a 'higher court' as there isn't anything they're being asked to judge on, and isn't a 'higher court' to send it too anyway. CAS' role is solely to assess whether UEFA's approach, process and conclusion is valid.
No legal case is more than 70% likely to win but City must be very confident or they would have settled because the stakes are very high so say, 60%-70% confident City win. But I must stress this is based largely on the fact we haven't settled rather than the substantive arguments.
When you say no legal case is more than 70% likely to win are you taking about the defence of a client?
If your taking about a prosecution, then it's just wrong. Can you clarify?
3 days is a lot for CAS. But CAS won't be thinking lets send it somewhere higher. That isn't their role. Their role is to make a decision based on the evidence presented.Fair enough - I had it in my head that it was scheduled for longer. Also I suppose going to another / higher court is down to the losing side rather than CAS, so see what you mean there.
I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence but I'm saying in civil litigation or all types (including things like this), you can never be more than 70% certain when you go to a trial either as claimant or defendant, appellant or respondent. So many variables and even the strongest cases can lose. There are no certainties and in this case, regardless of City's view, UEFA will feel they have a good, arguable case.
Yep. That high hurdle always gives me confidence. We will prevail.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.
FFP = Fundamentally Flawed Procedure, which just happens to be UEFA'S motto.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
I think you are being rather politically correct with the words beginning with the letter "F"FFP = Fundamentally Flawed Procedure, which just happens to be UEFA'S motto.
I read projectdriver last considerations regarding the potential case UEFA could run regarding the extension of time limits up to Jan 2022 and agree its entirely possible. I would however say if this was their thinking regarding time limitation why the god awful scramble to implement the sanction before the date we all summised was the expiry date in May? Or was that scramble wishful thinking? If it wasn't a scramble thats a hell of a coincidence.
Just a thought.
So ffp has been suspended for 12 months!!!!
Timing is a bit dodgy a week after CAS
This basically gives a free pass to the cartel to keep spending big and worry later about the consequences
If it was as simple as City pulling a fast one and ickle UEFA being hoodwinked, that would be one thing. This is more complex - as I have said many times, PwC/UEFA simply never believed or agreed with City's workings on these sponsorship agreements and therefore there was a settlement.
So ffp has been suspended for 12 months!!!!
Timing is a bit dodgy a week after CAS
This basically gives a free pass to the cartel to keep borrowing big and worry later about the consequences