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

[slbsn]

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.

 

[slbsn]

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.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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)."

Is there not also a burden of proof on UEFA to affirmatively prove the facts that helped the AC arrive at their decision? We have not disputed those emails, only that they were taken out of context.

Subsequently, our own burden of proof lies simply in availing CAS of the context and facts which actually did transpire?

UEFA can't substantiate any of its allegations based solely on those emails, which they state was their only reason for reopening the case.

I don't see how UEFA will be able to counter even against our audited accounts if that's the crux?

 

[JimmyGrimble10]

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

You heard anything mate?

 

[Jazzman]

Is there also a burden of proof on UEFA to affirmatively prove the facts that helped the AC arrive at their decision? We have not disputed those emails, only that they were taken out of context.

Subsequently, our own burden of proof lies simply in availing CAS of the context and facts which actually did transpire?

UEFA can't substantiate any of its allegations based solely on those emails, which they state was their only reason for reopening the case.

I don't see how UEFA will be able to counter even against our audited accounts if that's the crux?

Yep surely the burden of proof must lie on UEFA, given CAS looks at everything anew.

 

[supercity88]

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.

UEFA have assessed the proof and made their decision. We now are appealing that so it falls to us to challenge/provide new evidence, and therefore the sentence.

 

[BillyShears]

You heard anything mate?

Nope. Not beyond the fact that the verdict is coming next Monday.

 

[Jazzman]

UEFA have assessed the proof and made their decision. We now are appealing that so it falls to us to challenge/provide new evidence, and therefore the sentence.

But @projectriver told us CAS starts completely anew. So much that UEFA not following any proper processes and harming City deliberately with media leaks will not even be considered. Can't be that the burden of proof is entirely on City.

 

[Damanino]

Our lawyers must have a plan B ready in case of a 1 year ban or 2 year ban.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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

It's very good news. Zero possibility that City would willingly co-ordinate with UEFA on this if we knew we had lost.

Looking at it another way, both parties do already know and UEFA would have everything to gain letting a guilty verdict be announced before Friday's draw.

I don't subscribe to the theory they wouldn't want anything being taken away from the actual draw, it would be the ultimate demonstration from UEFA to the lobbying clubs that they have put us back in our box.

City would also want to get their version out in the knowledge of a guilty verdict.

 

[slbsn]

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.

Pep is all over the place in his language. Wouldn't read too much into it. CAS aren't sentencing, and forget suspended sentences. It's not happening

 

[slbsn]

It's very good news. Zero possibility that City would willingly co-ordinate with UEFA on this if we knew we had lost.

Looking at it another way, both parties do already know and UEFA would have everything to gain letting a guilty verdict be announced before Friday's draw.

I don't subscribe to the theory they wouldn't want anything being taken away from the actual draw, it would be the ultimate demonstration from UEFA to the lobbying clubs that they have put us back in our box.

City would also want to get their version out in the knowledge of a guilty verdict.

I wouldn't read too much into it - probably requested a while ago and very unlikely City's lawyers would have taken any issue with it. Likely won't change when they know the result.