Pablo ZZZ Peroni
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,448
@projectriver not doing a write up. He has no need. I've not said it recently but thanks for your brilliant work on this. Saw yesterday that some on here yesterday were having a pop as well. Pathetic.
From the linked article the final section is brilliant and particularly the last paragraph I've bolded:
Significance of the CAS Decision
Following the release of the CAS Decision news reporters and fans were decrying “the end of FFP”. The CAS Decision does not signify that. More particularly, despite the CAS Panel’s comments on the drafting of the limitation period stated in article 37 PRCFCB, there is nothing negative stated about UEFA’s CLFFPR or its procedures. The CAS Decision, if anything, is a rousing call for clubs to give greater support and cooperation to the CFCB when it is the subject of an investigation or charge under the CLFFPR and PRCFCB.
On the point of article 37 PRCFCB – although UEFA will not see it this way considering the overall outcome – it is welcomed that there is now some clear authority on the interpretation of the same. Whilst I would agree with Professor Jack Anderson’s comment that the CAS Panel’s interpretation of article 37 PRCFCB included ‘no reference to previous CAS cases, Swiss law or comparative law’, the interpretation provided by the CAS Panel, in this author’s opinion, is fitting. UEFA may adopt such an interpretation in future editions of the PRCFCB, or may draft a limitation clause to reflect the AC Decision and UEFA’s submissions to the CAS Panel (i.e. that time stops on the date the IC opens its investigation, not when a referral decision is issued as decided by the CAS Panel).
Nevertheless, in this author’s opinion, having now read the CAS Decision, this entire dispute appears over-hyped and demonstrative of an element of desperation from UEFA to pin a charge on MCFC. The absence of cogent evidence from UEFA / the CFCB is astounding and this author is in disbelief that the AC Decision, let alone the Referral Decision, was made on the basis of the evidence available. Neither the CAS nor the purpose and aim of the CLFFPR should be undermined for the CFCB’s decision to proceed with a case that could not be properly proved. Admittedly, however, one upshot of that could be that clubs will be even more vigilant in ensuring their compliance with the CLFFPR to avoid being ardently pursued by UEFA.
From the linked article the final section is brilliant and particularly the last paragraph I've bolded:
Significance of the CAS Decision
Following the release of the CAS Decision news reporters and fans were decrying “the end of FFP”. The CAS Decision does not signify that. More particularly, despite the CAS Panel’s comments on the drafting of the limitation period stated in article 37 PRCFCB, there is nothing negative stated about UEFA’s CLFFPR or its procedures. The CAS Decision, if anything, is a rousing call for clubs to give greater support and cooperation to the CFCB when it is the subject of an investigation or charge under the CLFFPR and PRCFCB.
On the point of article 37 PRCFCB – although UEFA will not see it this way considering the overall outcome – it is welcomed that there is now some clear authority on the interpretation of the same. Whilst I would agree with Professor Jack Anderson’s comment that the CAS Panel’s interpretation of article 37 PRCFCB included ‘no reference to previous CAS cases, Swiss law or comparative law’, the interpretation provided by the CAS Panel, in this author’s opinion, is fitting. UEFA may adopt such an interpretation in future editions of the PRCFCB, or may draft a limitation clause to reflect the AC Decision and UEFA’s submissions to the CAS Panel (i.e. that time stops on the date the IC opens its investigation, not when a referral decision is issued as decided by the CAS Panel).
Nevertheless, in this author’s opinion, having now read the CAS Decision, this entire dispute appears over-hyped and demonstrative of an element of desperation from UEFA to pin a charge on MCFC. The absence of cogent evidence from UEFA / the CFCB is astounding and this author is in disbelief that the AC Decision, let alone the Referral Decision, was made on the basis of the evidence available. Neither the CAS nor the purpose and aim of the CLFFPR should be undermined for the CFCB’s decision to proceed with a case that could not be properly proved. Admittedly, however, one upshot of that could be that clubs will be even more vigilant in ensuring their compliance with the CLFFPR to avoid being ardently pursued by UEFA.