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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
I doubt the club leadership are letting the players know all the ins and outs even if the hearing was positive.

No doubt the journo is connected to Aguero but this will have just been a rallying call to finish the season properly, framed as positively as possible.
 
This could be really old news, we know Soriano spoke to the players ages ago, a little gets lost in translation and boom.

City won't be briefing the players about the case.
 
CAS aren't going to suspend a ban. I was inspired to re-check CAS AC Milan v UEFA to see CAS's options https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_Final_5808.pdf. They are unlikely to send it back to the AC even if they decide (which I doubt) that the punishment was disproportionate.

Para 158 states CAS has the power to "issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and refer the case back to [the CFCB]”.

In AC Milan, it referred the case back to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber saying "In doing so the Panel respects the autonomy of the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber to find a proportionate response based on a careful and thorough assessment of the underlying facts as provided for in Article 28 of the Procedural Rules."

Critically this was largely because AC Milan specifically requested that the case be sent back to the CFCB.

It seems very unlikely City would do that. So I expect CAS to decide.

Interestingly, in AC Milan we see UEFA conclusively state in respect of the 2014 settlement that (para 79(g)): "Manchester City [was similar to AC Milan in respect of] the huge size of the breach in relation to the break-even requirement, ...On a procedural level the Respondent confirmed that in ...Manchester City ...there had been two hearings before the CFCB Investigatory Chamber." AC Milan state (and it is accepted), City's breach in 2014 was even higher than €121m. This is important because it supports the Conn details of what UEFA already knew in 2014.
 
There's probably something a bit lost in translation there. I don't believe CAS have the power to do that. All they can do is uphold the ban, clear us completely or suggest the punishment is too severe, which would mean UEFA having to look at it again.
Exactly this
 
Wasn't there a thing that we were at risk of premier league involvement if we were found guilty - leading to dipper fans thinking they could be awarded the 2014 title.

Presume that this could still happen if we got a suspended ban as that would be a 'guilty' verdict.
 
CAS aren't going to suspend a ban. I was inspired to re-check CAS AC Milan v UEFA to see CAS's options https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_Final_5808.pdf. They are unlikely to send it back to the AC even if they decide (which I doubt) that the punishment was disproportionate.

Para 158 states CAS has the power to "issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and refer the case back to [the CFCB]”.

In AC Milan, it referred the case back to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber saying "In doing so the Panel respects the autonomy of the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber to find a proportionate response based on a careful and thorough assessment of the underlying facts as provided for in Article 28 of the Procedural Rules."

Critically this was largely because AC Milan specifically requested that the case be sent back to the CFCB.

It seems very unlikely City would do that. So I expect CAS to decide.

Interestingly, in AC Milan we see UEFA conclusively state in respect of the 2014 settlement that (para 79(g)): "Manchester City [was similar to AC Milan in respect of] the huge size of the breach in relation to the break-even requirement, ...On a procedural level the Respondent confirmed that in ...Manchester City ...there had been two hearings before the CFCB Investigatory Chamber." AC Milan state (and it is accepted), City's breach in 2014 was even higher than €121m. This is important because it supports the Conn details of what UEFA already knew in 2014.

Wasn't the breech huge because we were stopped from using the original pre 2010 contract guidelines due to the 2013 changes

Would part of our defence be the simple act of showing the two sets of guidelines together, highlighting the differences and saying we only failed because Uefa decided that we must fail?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.