This, in my opinion, is an fair way to think about the current ffp (CAS) situation but to me it is not what guides my thinking. For me, it is about the principle of the honesty of the club‘s top people. I totally believe them when they say that the club has done nothing wrong and that if the facts (and only the facts) are used to determine the CAS outcome we will be totally exonerated. If the CAS decision does not totally absolve us from any wrong doing, I expect the club to take it to the highest legal court. If we do not, then the principle of the club’s honesty will have been broken AND once broken can never again be mended.
The club’s top hierarchy have put their reputations on the line and I hope that my belief in their integrity is not damaged in any way. I am sure that my belief will be sustained in the days, months and years to come. I have been a city supporter for well over 50 years but this is a (THE) watershed moment for me.
I don’t want to sound like the idiot fans of other clubs who say we have cooked the books or are committing money laundering. But how can CAS punish us without a criminal investigation ? I know it’s was suggested that there is no public interest (rival clubs would disagree) and if we have done what’s alleged we have actually given the tax man more money not less but we have non the less fiddled the books. The fact this case is major news but nothing is happening in the criminal sense surely makes it likely we will win at CAS. Can it even be a sort of defense ? Am I missing something ? Heck the press who have gone after us haven’t even suggested we are criminals perhaps they to know we haven’t done anything wrong
Thanks for the post. I am aware of the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance but since UEFA often use the phrase "the spirit of the rule" I was unclear if they recognise this distinction and hoped for legal opinion on te subject.SilverFox2. In regards to the question that you posed. If you try and evade paying your income tax that is illegal. However if you try to avoid paying for income tax that is o.k.thanks
That's why you don't have to declare your ISA interest on your tax return.
Very interesting. I noted a specific section about what the IC were allowed to investigate on, being 2016-18 & 2017-2018. From this my understanding is that City are saying in the previous settlement agreement it was specified that UEFA could not re-investigate the periods up to end the of the 2016 reporting period. It states the IC's decision is City have been released from the settlement agreement, i don't know if that means that UEFA have gone against the terms of the decision so City are now free to release/use any information that was to be witheld following that settlement, or that UEFA have actually said 'you are released from this so we can now investigate you'. I think it may be the former, in which case we may have had some interesting evidence to show CAS that was agreed in the settlement never to be disclosed. In that article it says as part of that initial settlement, City did not agree they have breached UEFA's rules, so whatever is in the settlement must have been quite tasty:FWIW the settlement agreement expressly stated we made no admission in respect of the breaches
"[The Settlement Agreement] specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR." para 6 of https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf
I think you need to do a dumbed down version for all us tripeheads on here.Very interesting. I noted a specific section about what the IC were allowed to investigate on, being 2016-18 & 2017-2018. From this my understanding is that City are saying in the previous settlement agreement it was specified that UEFA could not re-investigate the periods up to end the of the 2016 reporting period. It states the IC's decision is City have been released from the settlement agreement, i don't know if that means that UEFA have gone against the terms of the decision so City are now free to release/use any information that was to be witheld following that settlement, or that UEFA have actually said 'you are released from this so we can now investigate you'. I think it may be the former, in which case we may have had some interesting evidence to show CAS that was agreed in the settlement never to be disclosed. In that article it says as part of that initial settlement, City did not agree they have breached UEFA's rules, so whatever is in the settlement must have been quite tasty:
The IC exceeded its jurisdiction in making the Referral Decision. The
Referral Decision makes no allegations concerning the reporting
periods 2016-17 and 2017-18, which are the only periods that it had
jurisdiction to review (and on which it stated that its Investigation was
focused). The IC has no jurisdiction to make determinations on matters
relating to any earlier point in time:
(a) breaches alleged against MCFC before the 2016-2017 reporting
period are covered by the Settlement Agreement. The IC does not
have jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the 2014
Settlement Agreement because:
(i) the Settlement Agreement created a bespoke “Settlement
Regime” covering the entirety of the periods referred to in
the Referral Decision, including to the end of the reporting
period 2015-2016;
(ii) in any event, the IC has issued a decision through which
MCFC has been formally released from the Settlement
Agreement and the Settlement Regime;
(b) the IC is time-barred from reopening the proceedings that were
concluded by the Settlement Agreement and letter of release;
(c) all breaches alleged against MCFC more than five years prior to
the communication of the Referral Decision to the AC are timebarred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules, which
CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 12
prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five
years ago; and
(d) in any event, the temporal jurisdiction of the IC is limited to the
current “monitoring period” and, specifically, the “reporting
periods” 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
Precisely. Which makes it all the more galling that Bayern Munich try to portray themselves as morally superior to us.What on earth makes you think that there should be a criminal investigation?
There has never been an accusation that we've broken any law be it a tax law or otherwise.
You need to understand that FFP offences are only breaches in the rules of a sporting body that runs a competition, they are not breaches in law.
That would include me. Patiently waiting for ProjectRiver to tell us idiots what this all means!I think you need to do a dumbed down version for all us tripeheads on here.
We could do with a flow chart - If this happens >>then this will happen or this will happen.That would include me. Patiently waiting for ProjectRiver to tell us idiots what this all means!
If the settlement from before 2016 specifically says those periods can't be re-investigated or looked into and UEFA are actually looking into those exact periods, as it kind of suggests in the document, then i assume we would legally have a challenge there. But i know fuck all about law and i suppose it's hard to distinguish for anyone without being able to see the specifics of the settlement.
What on earth makes you think that there should be a criminal investigation?
There has never been an accusation that we've broken any law be it a tax law or otherwise.
You need to understand that FFP offences are only breaches in the rules of a sporting body that runs a competition, they are not breaches in law.