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

[blue oli]

Was it just me or wasn’t the referral to CAS only to look at one subject only;

Did Waffa follow their own procedures in a fair unbiased manner ?

This would mean all previous comments about sponsorship deals, what ifs, how it’s considered are not in fact under review - it’s just a review that says ‘yes you followed your own rules or no you didn’t apply them fairly’ ?

Or is that too simplistic a view of this?

 

[Dirty Harry]

Was it just me or wasn’t the referral to CAS only to look at one subject only;

Did Waffa follow their own procedures in a fair unbiased manner ?

This would mean all previous comments about sponsorship deals, what ifs, how it’s considered are not in fact under review - it’s just a review that says ‘yes you followed your own rules or no you didn’t apply them fairly’ ?

Or is that too simplistic a view of this?

From what I can gather, yes it seems so, the case is being heard " de novo(tel, motel, holiday iiiiiiiiiiiiiinn), so in effect, UEFA CAN ride roughshod over their own procedures, guidelines and rules to punish you, and if the other party take it to CAS, then UEFA's transgressions to get there will/can be ignored.

That's pretty much as I understand it anyway mate.

 

[the talisman]

Was it just me or wasn’t the referral to CAS only to look at one subject only;

Did Waffa follow their own procedures in a fair unbiased manner ?

This would mean all previous comments about sponsorship deals, what ifs, how it’s considered are not in fact under review - it’s just a review that says ‘yes you followed your own rules or no you didn’t apply them fairly’ ?

Or is that too simplistic a view of this?

It won’t help their case if they didn’t follow procedures correctly but we are trying to prove that we didn’t cheat and that’s what CAS will rule on.

 

[Tb1981]

There next assault will be on limiting the number of clubs you can have an Interest in - they are terrified by our business model which, ultimately will see us overwhelm the G14 clubs - in their opinion we have to be stopped by any means.

True
Already limiting loan deals aren’t they
That is just to stop Chelsea and us from getting best young talent and loaning/selling in for a profit

Basically they want the big clubs to be protected by the big sponsorship income by preventing any other income sources
Basically you have a great business plan and are debt free, uefa day fuck that that’s not fair play!

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

It won’t help their case if they didn’t follow procedures correctly but we are trying to prove that we didn’t cheat and that’s what CAS will rule on.

Pretty sure we're trying to prove they didn't follow their own rules in punishing us in the first instance

 

[M18CTID]

I think they are just clearing the way for City to be found not guilty.

The timing would be dodgier if they found us guilty and then a week later suspended FFP!

I honestly don’t think that there is any link whatsoever to our case and I honestly don’t think it’s being done to help out the so-called cartel clubs either. I’m suspicious of a lot of things that UEFA do but this pandemic has had a huge financial impact on ALL football clubs - big and small, cartel and non-cartel - so it was obvious that they would have to do something with regards to the FFP regs, otherwise there might be a situation where they end up banning every fucking club in Europe for failing to meet the break-even requirement!

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

For months now I have been saying that FFP should be abolished. It should be replaced with a system that I call COP. Which stands for CAN OWNERS PAY. This means that all owners of clubs have to pass a test that should a bank or any company coming calling for their debts to be paid. The owners will have sufficient funds in their own bank account/s to pay of either all of the debt that is due, or most off it to keep the debtors happy with this payment.

The situation as it stands is that clubs like Man Utd, Barcelona, and Real Madrid are heavily in debt yet every year they some how pass FFP. Why surely if their debt has gone up they must have surely failed FFP. The only reason I can see is that they need these clubs in the European Comps run by UEFA to keep the TV broadcasters happy.

What would the Champions League look like if UEFA had to ban the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid etc. from the Champions League for failing FFP. It would surely open up all the groups and they could possibly have a new winner of the cup. Wait now we cannot be having that. We that is UEFA cannot be having a new Champions League winner that is just not right. We have to at all costs make sure that who ever wins the Champions League has won it already.

 

[Tb1981]

Salary cap
Limit number of transfers
Limit transfer fees
Even money distribution throughout leagues
No champions league
Half gate receipts
There’s a load of ffp measures that night make it fair
No chance if any though, tells you what they really think

 

[SilverFox2]

The chances of them addressing debt are zero given the debt these clubs carry due to their business models.

FFP is about stopping competition and has nothing to do with giving a shit about saving clubs from going under.

If debt can be serviced via income then no threat from the way cash is provided.
Banks tend to want customers to show that they don't need a further loan before they agree so somewhere there is a need for a guarantor.
In that case is the guarantor considered a related party?

 

[lancs blue]

From what I can gather, yes it seems so, the case is being heard " de novo(tel, motel, holiday iiiiiiiiiiiiiinn), so in effect, UEFA CAN ride roughshod over their own procedures, guidelines and rules to punish you, and if the other party take it to CAS, then UEFA's transgressions to get there will/can be ignored.

That's pretty much as I understand it anyway mate.

I don't think that's quite right, "de novo" means reviewing the case from scratch so that all previous evidence is still admissible and CAS can review all the facts and the procedures involved.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I honestly don’t think that there is any link whatsoever to our case and I honestly don’t think it’s being done to help out the so-called cartel clubs either. I’m suspicious of a lot of things that UEFA do but this pandemic has had a huge financial impact on ALL football clubs - big and small, cartel and non-cartel - so it was obvious that they would have to do something with regards to the FFP regs, otherwise there might be a situation where they end up banning every fucking club in Europe for failing to meet the break-even requirement!

Funny isn't it, because as things stand, you'd think they would want, maybe even need, clubs like ourselves to keep investing money into the game, it seems a bit like killing the goose that laid the golden egg in some respects.

 

[the talisman]

Pretty sure we're trying to prove they didn't follow their own rules in punishing us in the first instance

I think we have presented “irrefutable proof” that we didn’t submit false accounts. According to the club.

 

[nmc]

I don't think that's quite right, "de novo" means reviewing the case from scratch so that all previous evidence is still admissible and CAS can review all the facts and the procedures involved.

Exactly... all we ever wanted was a fair hearing and a hearing that considered all the facts.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I don't think that's quite right, "de novo" means reviewing the case from scratch so that all previous evidence is still admissible and CAS can review all the facts and the procedures involved.

I know mate, maybe I've misunderstood a passage of comments I had with Projectriver a while back, but at the time from what I could gather, it seemed that once we took the matter to CAS, how UEFA may have cut corners in their own procedures etc (or even circumvented them) to punish us, once it became a matter for CAS, then how they got there became largely irrelevant , and that allowed CAS to look at the case from 'anew'.

 

[solley attwell]

So from what I understand UEFA reckon the bulk of the sponsorship by Etihad for one season was paid by sheik mansour.. Now if the sheik decided to give us a £500m low interest loan to saddle onto the club we would have passed FFP but put the clubs future in possible jepoardy.
Isn't keeping clubs afloat the reason behind FFP??

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Why is it a waste of time? Establishing a sense of accountability with people like him (and the organisation that employs him) is long overdue.

I think we should be very selective with any legal action. It's very time-consuming and City have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. That's not to say we shouldn't be more proactive in rebutting clowns like Jordan. There are many things you can do to make life difficult for our enemies than being tied up in costly legal actions. You dont always get your costs paid even when you win.
Jordan has little credibility and Talksport is a bit of a joke. I would be more worried about people like Matthew Syed who has written defamatory articles in the past about our owners in the Times (which is still seen as an influential newspaper). I don't think many of our potential sponsors listen to Talksport. We need to pick our battles.

 

[slbsn]

Was it just me or wasn’t the referral to CAS only to look at one subject only;

Did Waffa follow their own procedures in a fair unbiased manner ?

This would mean all previous comments about sponsorship deals, what ifs, how it’s considered are not in fact under review - it’s just a review that says ‘yes you followed your own rules or no you didn’t apply them fairly’ ?

Or is that too simplistic a view of this?

Yes its too simplistic. It is wrong in fact.

 

[lonestay]

At some point in the future debt will have to be addressed in the game , debt is one of those things that won't go away in any walk of life . If the world goes into a deep recession then the banks will want their money back. Abramovich will at some point want his loan repaid, if it comes down to his lifestyle or Chelsea FC what's he going to pick ? The scum can just about keep ahead of the debt as the world is at the moment but there only has to be a small change in circumstances, it seems that they rely on the fact that they are a "glamour" club and what ever the debt someone would buy them and service that debt, but in a changed world that debt may not seem insignificant to a potential buyer, like it does to the scum owners presently . As much as eufa fiddle with ffp to make it seem more palatable to clubs, it is really only arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. The debt iceberg is always there.

 

[slbsn]

I know mate, maybe I've misunderstood a passage of comments I had with Projectriver a while back, but at the time from what I could gather, it seemed that once we took the matter to CAS, how UEFA may have cut corners in their own procedures etc (or even circumvented them) to punish us, once it became a matter for CAS, then how they got there became largely irrelevant , and that allowed CAS to look at the case from 'anew'.

CAS is considered to cure procedural issues or UEFA failings to consider relevant things earlier in the process.

 

[Dirty Harry]

If you break down the written submissions City made at CAS 1 (https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf p14) you can see the likely main strands of argument at CAS 2:

a) ...the Investigation conducted by [UEFA] was not conducted in accordance with procedural fairness and due process and was contrary to legitimate expectations; IRRELEVANT NOW AS CAS IS A DE NOVO TRIAL

CAS is considered to cure procedural issues or UEFA failings to consider relevant things earlier in the process.

I was going off this comment Projectriver ?