CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[Chris in London]

If the case was de novo, why was the non-cooperation charge not rejected as the non-cooperation happened during the IC part of the CFCB process, which was the same part of the process as the leaks occurred? I know the reasons that CAS gave for supporting the charge but I couldn't see why it was relevant in a de novo case.

It is 'worrisome' that the CAS decision to allow the use of criminally obtained documents validates the publishing of stolen emails in order that they can be used against certain clubs in sport cases such as this and as a result their decision could encourage criminality in the form of illegal hacking.

GDM is right about this. The origin of the “de novo” doctrine is in fact appeals in small claims court (hence GDMs particular expertise). The Judge hearing the appeal is faced with a stack of papers about what has already happened in the case and what the first decision was. Thinking ‘fuck it, I can’t be arsed reading all that, I’d sooner get pissed again,’ he takes the view that he will just ignore everything that has happened before and start from scratch. To make this sound more intellectually robust, this is given a Latin name, “de novo.” The original English name, “I don’t give a shit what anyone else made of this previously” lacks that je ne sais quoi but is probably a clearer description of what the doctrine means in practice.

 

[SilverFox2]

I don't think there is any basis for thinking they don't see City as a major threat. Isn't that the point, they fear the disruption that has happened and which could happen. Even more so as credible third party investors join the party.

I think they have feared our owner because of his financial acumen which dispelled the fallacy that running and profiting from a football sector was special.

They have had to simply tarnish us with lies and targeted rules to halt a proper business plan that covered up their fear of admitting what a proper investment plan can do.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The origin of the “de novo” doctrine is in fact appeals in small claims court (hence GDMs particular expertise).

*blushes*

 

[kaz7]

Is this the same article as the one in Goal.com?
https://www.goal.com/en-cm/news/bay...y-overturn-uefa-ban/rvzxmzfwgn5313dwbi50hfb5h

"Pep Guardiola’s side had expected to sit out the next two years of competition but were found to have exploited a loophole in UEFA’s regulations that meant this aspect of their suspension was annulled, while a €30 million (£27m/$35m) fine was reduced to €10m (£9m/$11m)."

I don't get it? What loophole did we exploit??
Getting exonerated by CAS is not a "loophole", I would have thought..

The media don't have an agenda though

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

the loophole being doing things correctly.

 

[Gazza]

I think they have feared our owner because of his financial acumen which dispelled the fallacy that running and profiting from a football sector was special.

They have had to simply tarnish us with lies and targeted rules to halt a proper business plan that covered up their fear of admitting what a proper investment plan can do.

The City Group have clubs all over the world - at least one on each continent, United have a stadium with a leaky roof.

 

[chedinho]

All theoretically possible but I doubt it. I think it was 2-1 in City. And they very much wanted the reader to know

It’s worrying that someone actually voted in uefa favour if that’s the case.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It’s worrying that someone actually voted in uefa favour if that’s the case.

We don't know what the level of dissent from the majority view was. It could have been as mild as "Well I'm not happy to say I'm comfortably satisfied that City did (or didn't do) X", which is a kind of 'Don't know' or it could be "I'm comfortably satisfied that City did disguise equity funding as sponsorship revenue despite what you two think". That's more of a 'I'm convinced City are cheats' end of the spectrum.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

In reply to halfcenturyup. Putting myself in Ceferin shoes I would say something l likethis " So you want to a European Super League. Well that's fine by UEFA but you are barred from competing in any of you domestic competitions,plus any of UEFA'S comps. Another point of you want to return to your own domestic comps, you must start in their lowest league available and subject to all FFP'S that may apply in that league. If this means that uncannily spend a certain amount of money so be it.

 

[chedinho]

We don't know what the level of dissent from the majority view was. It could have been as mild as "Well I'm not happy to say I'm comfortably satisfied that City did (or didn't do) X", which is a kind of 'Don't know' or it could be "I'm comfortably satisfied that City did disguise equity funding as sponsorship revenue despite what you two think". That's more of a 'I'm convinced City are cheats' end of the spectrum.

I would be shocked and worried if someone did actually vote against that evidence.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

In reply to halfcenturyup. Putting myself in Ceferin shoes I would say something l likethis " So you want to a European Super League. Well that's fine by UEFA but you are barred from competing in any of you domestic competitions,plus any of UEFA'S comps. Another point of you want to return to your own domestic comps, you must start in their lowest league available and subject to all FFP'S that may apply in that league. If this means that uncannily spend a certain amount of money so be it.

I hope your sister agrees with this.

 

[bobmcfc]

Couldn’t resist; sorry ;-)

Hope you’re well honey :-)

I’m doing well. Back at work now after maternity and 2 months shielding from Covid. Hope you are well too

 

[asahartford1]

Have we a separate thread regarding the premier leagues 3 pronged investigation into our club. The "independent judicial and appeals panel" seems to be finalised. I assume that they have been set up at great expense for a reason.
I have been trying to find out more information, but I am struggling to do so.

After a weeks holiday it is time our excellent legal posters got back to work.


I would like a bit of clarity about what exactly they are investigating.
Who was doing that investigating , and on whose authority .
What time frame we may be looking at before we are charged.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Ric Parry not being at Uefa any more will also go a long way to solving a few of the problems we had behind the scenes at UEFA.

Him and his mate on the Liverpool board will be looking over their shoulders for a good while to come.

Can't remember a single leak of any real significance out of UEFA since Parry left. Do you think it's a coincidence that Peter Moore has now left the LFC board? I wonder what prompted that move just after winning the title.

 

[jimbo101]

i'm assuming you dont just pick a random arbiter.
Whilst they are not allowed to have any connections to the club/UEFA I'm sure we would have 'interviewed' them to get a perspective on how they would view things.
They know who picked them & that must weigh on their mind when weighing up the evidence.
Some things are just black & white, but where there is a justifiable divergence of opinion, who picked you will surely dictate which side you come down on.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Good post. If you were Ceferin, what would you do over the next few years to counter the threat of a break-away Super League, and with which parties would you do it?

I think at the moment that the problem poses itself in rather different terms for Ceferin. He doesn't want to see, and I suspect no-one wants to see, a breakaway because it could damage football as we know it greatly. The question is whether a breakaway could take enough teams with it to make it worthwhile and I doubt it, and that's before we ask what a game between Barcelona and Bayern would be worth in front of no fans or how many Germans can now afford to go to Barca and vice versa. That's a problem for the teams contemplating breaking away. For Ceferin the problem is rather concerned with how many other clubs will survive this Corona virus crisis if he maintains the limits on investment that are central to the present version of FFP. Only allowing revenue from gate receipts, sponsorship and TV rights depends on an economic underpinning which is unlikely to be there for some time if FFP is to work at all. Spurs and United, to name but two, have taken out large loans and added significantly to their debt. Spurs may well struggle for some time to come but may simply have to sell and not buy. At less sizeable clubs the choice may be starker and I quoted earlier the case of Bournemouth. They are not untypical of clubs everywhere (Hamburg are owned by a billionaire who is longing to invest) in that they are unsuccessful, probably in deep trouble but with a very rich owner. If FFP remains in force there will be no point in many rich men owning football clubs, and so Ceferin may have to tell the G 14 that investment will be allowed even if they secede. BUT as I argued some time ago, if Ceferin is a truly ruthless operator he should have no difficulty in finding corruption charges against many at the seceding clubs, and that would make sponsors and TV companies have second thoughts about the advisability of a breakaway. After all we've worried about the damage to our reputation of having done nothing wrong ...

 

[johnevans]

The loophole we exploited was UEFA not being able to show to the comfortable satisfaction of UEFA the we had done what we were accused of doing.

Rather, Chris, I think it was because we employed to lead our defence team the giant legal-eagle brain that is J.Cheever Loophole.. and I don't doubt for one second that Groucho Marx would've wiped the floor with UEFA's legal team and its paper thin case!

 

[Centurions]

i'm assuming you dont just pick a random arbiter.
Whilst they are not allowed to have any connections to the club/UEFA I'm sure we would have 'interviewed' them to get a perspective on how they would view things.
They know who picked them & that must weigh on their mind when weighing up the evidence.
Some things are just black & white, but where there is a justifiable divergence of opinion, who picked you will surely dictate which side you come down on.

Admittedly I'm no expert but I'd say you're entirely wrong on every single count there.

 

[Centurions]

Have we a separate thread regarding the premier leagues 3 pronged investigation into our club. The "independent judicial and appeals panel" seems to be finalised. I assume that they have been set up at great expense for a reason.
I have been trying to find out more information, but I am struggling to do so.

After a weeks holiday it is time our excellent legal posters got back to work.


I would like a bit of clarity about what exactly they are investigating.
Who was doing that investigating , and on whose authority .
What time frame we may be looking at before we are charged.

3 pronged?

 

[LongsightM13]

Ric Parry not being at Uefa any more will also go a long way to solving a few of the problems we had behind the scenes at UEFA.

Him and his mate on the Liverpool board will be looking over their shoulders for a good while to come.

As I’ve said before the timing of his departure from UEFA to the EFL gig was a fairly transparent move to ensure distance and plausible deniability. And he is doing such a sterling job in his new role as well - including, oddly enough, being caught talking out of turn again to someone he shouldn’t have been sharing confidential information with