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

[projectriver]

Anything which can be read into this, mate?

No - only one FFP related judgment and it is PSG. Interesting to read but not really a relevant case for us save for the conspiracy theorists. Obviously the correct call from CAS.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I wouldn't class them as professional friends i'd class them as twats who I wouldn't want to be friends with. With all respect..........

Quite agree mate - 2 of them are arsenal fans so we know what to expect!
But it just shows how anyone - even clever people- can be so easily manipulated by a determined media.
Just look at the state of the political world.

 

[projectriver]

Was reviewing some other FFP judgments and this one is useful for showing where the burden of proof lies for City and why CAS will not overturn a 2 year ban if it finds UEFA are correct in their case...see http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/4692.pdf#search=ffp settlement

"7.30 In doing so, the Sole Arbitrator adheres to the principle established by CAS jurisprudence that “in CAS arbitration, any party wishing to prevail on a disputed issue must discharge its burden of proof, i.e. it must meet the onus to substantiate its allegations and to affirmatively prove the facts on which it relies with respect to that issue, In other words, the party which asserts facts to support its rights has the burden of establishing them (..) The Code sets forth an adversarial system of arbitral justice, rather than an inquisitorial one. Hence, if a party wishes to establish some fact and persuade the deciding body, it must actively substantiate its allegations with convincing evidence” (e.g. CAS 2003/A/506, para. 54; CAS 2009/A/1810&1811, para. 46 and CAS 2009/A/1975, paras. 71ff).

7.31 However, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Appellant has not adequately discharged the burden of proof to establish that the sanction imposed is evidently disproportionate and/or constitutes a breach of its right to equal treatment.

7.32 In doing so, the Sole Arbitrator first of all agrees with the Respondent that, pursuant to CAS jurisprudence, the review of a sanction is only possible when the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the breach, with means, inter alia, that the CAS must show restraint when evaluating whether a sanction is appropriate (see CAS 2012/A/2762 and CAS 2009/A/1844)."

 

[BLUEMATT23]

Quite agree mate - 2 of them are arsenal fans so we know what to expect!
But it just shows how anyone - even clever people- can be so easily manipulated by a determined media.
Just look at the state of the political world.

I don't talk to other rival fans really some are just idiots, most of it's jealousy.

 

[Citizen Green]

Was reviewing some other FFP judgments and this one is useful for showing where the burden of proof lies for City and why CAS will not overturn a 2 year ban if it finds UEFA are correct in their case...see http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/4692.pdf#search=ffp settlement

"7.30 In doing so, the Sole Arbitrator adheres to the principle established by CAS jurisprudence that “in CAS arbitration, any party wishing to prevail on a disputed issue must discharge its burden of proof, i.e. it must meet the onus to substantiate its allegations and to affirmatively prove the facts on which it relies with respect to that issue, In other words, the party which asserts facts to support its rights has the burden of establishing them (..) The Code sets forth an adversarial system of arbitral justice, rather than an inquisitorial one. Hence, if a party wishes to establish some fact and persuade the deciding body, it must actively substantiate its allegations with convincing evidence” (e.g. CAS 2003/A/506, para. 54; CAS 2009/A/1810&1811, para. 46 and CAS 2009/A/1975, paras. 71ff).

7.31 However, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Appellant has not adequately discharged the burden of proof to establish that the sanction imposed is evidently disproportionate and/or constitutes a breach of its right to equal treatment.

7.32 In doing so, the Sole Arbitrator first of all agrees with the Respondent that, pursuant to CAS jurisprudence, the review of a sanction is only possible when the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the breach, with means, inter alia, that the CAS must show restraint when evaluating whether a sanction is appropriate (see CAS 2012/A/2762 and CAS 2009/A/1844)."

But surely the burden of proof is on UEFA to prove we have ‘overstated the revenue in our accounts’

this as well as a justification as to why the settlement period has been reneged on.

 

[JimmyGrimble10]

Pep: "On July 10th it's the draw and on the 13th will be the sentence. After that, i will give my opinion. We wait for the resolution from UEFA. This season is not going to change, it is so beautiful what we have in front of us."


Does this sound concerning to anyone else or maybe just his English trying to phrase it? The term “sentence” and “resolution from UEFA” is the worrying terms here, I find.

 

[Citizen Green]

Pep: "On July 10th it's the draw and on the 13th will be the sentence. After that, i will give my opinion. We wait for the resolution from UEFA. This season is not going to change, it is so beautiful what we have in front of us."


Does this sound concerning to anyone else or maybe just his English trying to phrase it? The term “sentence” and “resolution from UEFA” is the worrying terms here, I find.

Reading into it too much.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Pep: "On July 10th it's the draw and on the 13th will be the sentence. After that, i will give my opinion. We wait for the resolution from UEFA. This season is not going to change, it is so beautiful what we have in front of us."


Does this sound concerning to anyone else or maybe just his English trying to phrase it? The term “sentence” and “resolution from UEFA” is the worrying terms here, I find.

Not really. Sentence could effectively be 'no further punishment', or 'suspended punishment'.

 

[Citizen Green]

Not really. Sentence could effectively be 'no further punishment', or 'suspended punishment'.

I think from what projectriver has suggested if we are found guilty in anyway (other than issues relating purely to the 2015 + 16 accounts) we will be banned for 2 years as it is a justifiable punishment.

 

[BillyShears]

The July 13th date is correct apparently.

City must be very relaxed to agree to have it moved for UEFA. Part of me still thinks it’ll come earlier but by all accounts Mike’s story was okayed by the club.

Looks like Pep just confirmed that the Mail story and this post were indeed correct. Always good to know your sources are good.