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

[nmc]

Exactly, plus numerous failed managerial appointments, hundreds of millions wasted on transfers, smashing wage barriers etc. And this sanctimonious cunnt is in a position to help punish us for doing things right

And another set of hidden accounts in the Cayman Islands ! Whatever happened to those PIk notes that suddenly disappeared? Transparency my arse !

 

[Delboy352]

A more interesting question IMO is what liability do individuals have?

Yves Leterme is the 1 person the club have accused of inproper conduct. We know from the PSG case that as the head of the IC he has total power, and was able to summarily dismiss the objections of his colleagues without reason.

If he is the single person who has stopped the club from giving their evidence and made his ruling, then he is the single person responsible for all of the reputation damage done by his decision and his reaction to the accusation of leaking was the very definition of protesting too much.

So what exposure to civil or criminal action does he have personally if we get cleared, and he didn't follow the process he was supposed to?

I do hope we are successfully cleared and go on to sue Leterme. I’d be even more delighted if we won that case and he did a Lester Piggot and gave us a cheque from his “offshore” account...

 

[MikeF]

I often wonder, would the authorities have preferred us go to the wall had it remained in previous owners hands which could have happened. I was led to believe that, that kind of was why FFP was introduced in the first place!!

And here we are with the best owners in the land who contribute hugely to the local economy, with a great football team and a wholly holistic approach to business/community.

You couldn't make it up.

Anyway, I'm rambling, I know I am!!

 

[Marvin]

City did not agree to the change in the way that players contracted prior to 2010 were treated under FFP. We were reporting under the FFP regulations and at he last moment UEFA changed it's own rules.

This is what City mean by context. None of the journalists have presented this argument. That would be balanced. They don't do that.

 

[Rolee]

City did not agree to the change in the way that players contracted prior to 2010 were treated under FFP. We were reporting under the FFP regulations and at he last moment UEFA changed it's own rules.

This is what City mean by context. None of the journalists have presented this argument. That would be balanced. They don't do that.

Is that indisputable fact? I've never seen it reported as such.

 

[Andy Conway]

And another set of hidden accounts in the Cayman Islands ! Whatever happened to those PIk notes that suddenly disappeared? Transparency my arse !

They disappeared into an account in Delaware.

 

[Blue Feather]

Incredible the amount of band-wagon jumpers who are piping up. The same lot who 10, maybe 5 years ago (or even less) would have been totally against this made-up set of rules by some of the most corrupt people around, a cosy cartel who protect their own interests to stop others from doing what they have been doing for years!! I still can't work out why they get away with calling it the 'Champions' League when the vast majority of clubs involved aren't Champions?

 

[Marvin]

Is that indisputable fact? I've never seen it reported as such.

I am relying on arguments here that people like PB have posted.

It's explained here. I am afraid its lengthy but you can probably skim read it to get the idea.

https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/

 

[Parisian]

A more interesting question IMO is what liability do individuals have?

Yves Leterme is the 1 person the club have accused of inproper conduct. We know from the PSG case that as the head of the IC he has total power, and was able to summarily dismiss the objections of his colleagues without reason.

If he is the single person who has stopped the club from giving their evidence and made his ruling, then he is the single person responsible for all of the reputation damage done by his decision and his reaction to the accusation of leaking was the very definition of protesting too much.

So what exposure to civil or criminal action does he have personally if we get cleared, and he didn't follow the process he was supposed to?

The problem you'll have by taking on Leterme is the AC chamber has given a more severe sanction that the one year the IC was said to recommend.

I think UEFA will struggle IF challenged regarding their policy of effectively allowing 14 clubs to run the organisation in their own best interests and to hell with all the other affiliates and members. I’d expect the law to take a view that a sport’s governing body should have a structure and decision making process that reflects its wider membership and the wider interests of the sport.

The problem with FFP is they are showing that over the years clubs deficits have shrinked thanks to that regulation. They can thus claim it is for the wider interests of the sport.

Regarding CAS, there was this judgement in 2018, i wonder why it didn't impact the systematic recourse to CAS for an appeal of an UEFA verdict:
https://www.rtbf.be/sport/football/...-arbitral-du-sport-sont-illegales?id=10007518

The Brussels Court of Appeal said in a ruling released on Friday that clauses in the statutes of FIFA, UEFA and the national football federations imposing recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are illegal. This judgment comes within the framework of the litigation opposing the RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports to FIFA and UEFA. Seraing club had been sanctioned by the international football federation for having concluded a TPO (Third Party Ownership) contract with Doyen Sports.


The Brussels Court of Appeal had ordered, last January, the reopening of the proceedings in the case opposing the RFC Seraing and the company Doyen Sports to FIFA, UEFA, the Belgian Football Union and FIFPro, the union world of football players. She wished to obtain additional information concerning the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) before ruling. The Court of Appeal had held that it was necessary to examine the legality of the CAS in the light of European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the legality of the obligation for football clubs to use exclusively at the CAS. The court had said to question in particular the "general prohibition to address the ordinary courts" enacted by FIFA, in the context of disputes between a club and FIFA or UEFA.

After rehearing the parties on this precise point of the dispute, the court considered, in a long reasoned judgment communicated on Friday, that the clauses of the statutes of FIFA, UEFA and the national football federations imposing recourse to the CAS illegal. Thus, the court established that arbitration can only exist on the basis of a true consent of the parties, an arbitration clause can therefore only relate to "a determined legal relationship" according to the European Convention on arbitration of January 20, 1996. Arbitration cannot therefore relate, in general, to all disputes that may arise between federations and a club or a player. According to the Court of Appeal, the arbitration clauses of FIFA, UEFA and its members, and therefore the national football federations, violate this requirement of "determined legal relationship", which "relates to the law access to justice and respect for the will of the parties ", according to the European Court of Human Rights and the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union.
(...)
"The Brussels Court of Appeal gave reasons for its decision in a particularly detailed and particularly detailed manner. This judgment owes nothing to chance. It declares the illegality of the imposition of arbitration set up by the sports federations. which goes far beyond football. This was done on the basis of texts which apply throughout Europe. And therefore, it would be perfectly normal for any other judge in Europe to make the same analysis. instant, this judgment will have a global effect and will impose on the sports federations a new questioning of their operating modes "explains on the microphone of the RTBF Maître Jean-Louis Dupont, famous lawyer at the origin of the judgment Bosman (1995) .

"The Bosman judgment had forced the sports federations to become aware of the existence of the rule of law, continues Mr. Dupont. This judgment and its consequences will no doubt force the federations to finally function genuinely within the Rule of law. "

While recalling that the CAS is financed by the international sports federations, the lawyer concludes not without irony: "When a small club like Seraing comes to the CAS to maintain that a regulation considered by FIFA as strategic is illegal, you can imagine the chances that are Seraing's. "

 

[Bozzie]

I was looking at the thread at the time, and to be fair to said ‘blogger’, who for the avoidance of doubt is an articulate and talented City writer, the point that he made (namely that Rabin piling in with a trademark expose on what one of the journalists the ‘blogger’ was trying to have a sensible debate with, had said previously, wasn’t really helpful in the circumstances) had some validity IMO. It would be disappointing if Rabin has closed his account as a result of the altercation. He really has no need to

Was that the guy who feels we should reason with them and, when they spout bollocks such as "City are state owned", we should count to 10 and politely ask them if they could possibly find the time to provide some evidence to back up said bollocks? If so, he's pissing in the wind because soon afterwards Delaney basically accused PB of being wrong after he had provided him with a detailed explanation. As soon as he was asked to say where PB was so mistaken he refused and, as they all usually do, disappeared into Twitter no man's land.