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

[City Raider]

Liverpool signing De Bruyne if we get a ban... well a scouser told me so last night whilst rubbing his palms together.

He’ll have a job shifting Henderson from that midfield.

 

[slbsn]

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

No, burden is the appellants.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

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.

Pep also mentioned we need 4 moe points for CL qualification, he wouldn't mention that if he'd heard something concerning.

I think Pep's presser on Friday will be the really interesting one, surely we will know the outcome by then, even though it won't be made public until the Monday.

 

[slbsn]

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.

Confusing 2 concepts. Still will be for City to show UEFA is wrong. It's an appeal.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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.

I believe the agreed pushing back of an announcement happened only a couple days prior to the Daily Mail's article.

 

[Len Rum]

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)."

Both sides must discharge their burden of proof.
So my question would be what if UEFA cannot discharge their burden of proof, do City then have any obligation to disprove an unproven accusation ?

 

[cityzen81]

Surely the burden of proof is a bit of a moot point?

From what we (think) we know this case hinges on us proving that the sponsorship money came direct from the Etihad not Mansour himself. If we can prove that it has as been quoted then isn’t it case closed?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Confusing 2 concepts. Still will be for City to show UEFA is wrong. It's an appeal.

Is it a fair comment that CAS will review UEFA's case to determine that it's within the UEFA process regs, that it has evidence to support the conclusion and that the punishment is fair? After that, it's down to City to counter that evidence.

As you say, the current situation is 'guilty'.

 

[slbsn]

I believe the agreed pushing back of an announcement happened only a couple days prior to the Daily Mail's article.

Still don't think they knew the result by then so can see City saying fine. If City lose their focus will be on trying to get everyone to concentrate on this season's CL. It will be the mantra. It was previewed today by Pep.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

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.

At the start he also says ‘At the end of the season. We still have incredible targets to fight for’, I can’t remember him using those words before when talking about transfers!

I am taking the positive from your quote reference CAS, he says he will give ‘his opinion’, sounds like he has a lot of things to say, and ‘it is so beautiful what we have in front of us’, would he use these type of words if he thought/knew the outcome was negative?

Also why would we agree to a delay in announcement if not a good outcome?

Getting more nervous and looking at every word, ha, not long now.

 

[slbsn]

Is it a fair comment that CAS will review UEFA's case to determine that it's within the UEFA process regs, that it has evidence to support the conclusion and that the punishment is fair? After that, it's down to City to counter that evidence.

As you say, the current situation is 'guilty'.

UEFA have found x, City say it is wrong because of y,z and a and even if UEFA are right the sanction is disproportionate.

UEFA say, no it is right because of b, c and d. And UEFA say the sanction is not disproportionate and that CAS have no power to change it anyway.

CAS decide.

 

[remember arthur mann]

 

[ancoats]

I HEARD today by a mate i see when am out shopping ????? again this is just word of mouth

that a 2 part deal has been agreed and both parties are happy ? could city ban been taken away suspended for 2 years and with city having to produce revue details and any future sponsorship deals over a 3 year period, but the uefa fine also handed will be cut in half because city was partly to blame and city admitted to the miss understandings of rules at the times

if that is true then city are still guilty and have cut a deal with the devil

 

[Shaelumstash]

Still don't think they knew the result by then so can see City saying fine. If City lose their focus will be on trying to get everyone to concentrate on this season's CL. It will be the mantra. It was previewed today by Pep.

But following your earlier comments that you would know with a fair degree of certainty after the case how it went - do you not think this plays in to City's apparent confidence?

If the hearing had gone badly and we expected to lose, I couldn't see us being accommodating to UEFA's request to delay the announcement.

But if it had gone well and we were supremely confident we'd been successful, we might be willing to delay the announcement a few days?

 

[Keeper!]

I HEARD today by a mate i see when am out shopping ????? again this is just word of mouth

that a 2 part deal has been agreed and both parties are happy ? could city ban been taken away suspended for 2 years and with city having to produce revue details and any future sponsorship deals over a 3 year period, but the uefa fine also handed will be cut in half because city was partly to blame and city admitted to the miss understandings of rules at the times

if that is true then city are still guilty and have cut a deal with the devil

NO, the club want 100% closure from this crap.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Citizen Green]

I HEARD today by a mate i see when am out shopping ????? again this is just word of mouth

that a 2 part deal has been agreed and both parties are happy ? could city ban been taken away suspended for 2 years and with city having to produce revue details and any future sponsorship deals over a 3 year period, but the uefa fine also handed will be cut in half because city was partly to blame and city admitted to the miss understandings of rules at the times

if that is true then city are still guilty and have cut a deal with the devil

What is his background to be privvy to this kind of info?

 

[HelloCity]

UEFA need to give a resolution?

Maybe a mistake from Pep or UEFA have been told they need to resolve this.

Also mentions getting a ‘sentence’. Has a reduced punishment been recommended?

Maybe just reading too much into it.

 

[slbsn]

But following your earlier comments that you would know with a fair degree of certainty after the case how it went - do you not think this plays in to City's apparent confidence?

If the hearing had gone badly and we expected to lose, I couldn't see us being accommodating to UEFA's request to delay the announcement.

But if it had gone well and we were supremely confident we'd been successful, we might be willing to delay the announcement a few days?

If City had thought it had gone badly they would have done everything they could to have settled even post the hearing. So yes, but this release date is a really minor point for City.

 

[CWMCFC]

I HEARD today by a mate i see when am out shopping ????? again this is just word of mouth

that a 2 part deal has been agreed and both parties are happy ? could city ban been taken away suspended for 2 years and with city having to produce revue details and any future sponsorship deals over a 3 year period, but the uefa fine also handed will be cut in half because city was partly to blame and city admitted to the miss understandings of rules at the times

if that is true then city are still guilty and have cut a deal with the devil

Seems similar to what Jose Alvarez Haya (Aguero's mate) was tweeting a week or two ago with the whole suspended ban premise.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

What is his background to be privvy to this kind of info?

I'm more interested in what revue we'll be putting on ;)