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

[cheekybids]

What about the investigation of UEFA leaks?

 

[andyhinch]

They will let it run for the 6 years say they ran out of time and we will 'get off' on the time bound technicality.

I’m not sure how you get off something if to my knowledge you haven’t been changed with anything ?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Could we counter sue the PL for damaging our reputation?
To have a court case ruling on decisions and dealing with their investigations for over 4 years without any charge has resulted in unprecedented criticism and multitudes of negative press articles inferring guilt for breaching FFP and alluding owner sponsorship etc.
It's an utter liberty they've been taking which for evidence already ruled on by CAS as being unsupported in any way is just plain wrong and unjust in my opinion.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

The proposed sale of Liverpool FC has led journalists to reveal that John Henry spent more time on “Project Big Picture” than running LFC. That was the failed attempt to rejig the Prem and EFL.

Rick Parry also did much of the donkey work on this failed project. It sounds a bit like how UEFA brought FFP charges against City.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I apologise for the length of this response - I have major problems with brevity! In summary, my own inclination is that the current stance City are taking is absolutely the right one.

I think, in general, if you get caught bang to rights or if an investigation starts that you know will uncover incriminating evidence, then it's better to admit it. I personally doubt that we're in that position here. Apart from anything else, if there'd been anything that clearly pointed to our guilt, surely the PL would have laid charges rather than still been plugging away four years on. They'd probably have done so for anything that was borderline, too.

Assuming they've nothing by way of evidence that wasn't printed in Der Spiegel or aired before the CAS panel, then they can doubtless make a case that City have sought to circumvent various regulations in a way that the regulators themselves may not have anticipated. We also probably have a closer relationship with certain Abu Dhabi state companies that some of our critics would deem fair. After all, we were able to contact a couple of them and ask them to increase our sponsorship fee to help us meet an unexpected expense - and they did. You can bet most entities sponsored by Abu Dhabi state-owned companies wouldn't have such a request met with that answer.

If people want to criticise us for that then it's their prerogative, but they should be knowledgeable enough to be aware yet honest enough to admit that none of it means we've broken the rules. Nor is that a borderline call. Every day, all over the world, companies work with legal and financial experts to lawfully avoid the effect of regulatory regimes that have the potential to have a detrimental impact on their business. That IMO is what we've done, no more and no less.

We "took a pinch" once and our executives, though recognising discretion to be the better part of valour, were furious about having to do so. The chairman said we wouldn't take that course again, and I'm inclined to believe that we wouldn't accept a punishment on a second occasion when we think it unjustified.

I suppose I should add that, in any litigation, the specialists will tell you that, even with an incredibly strong case, you're never certain to win - usually, your brief won't venture a forecast of higher than an 80% prospect even if your case seems unassailable. For that reason, the overwhelming majority of cases are settled before they get to court. You can argue, as Stefan for one did, that the prudent course would have been for City to settle the case against UEFA before it reached CAS if they'd suspend or lift any ban.

It worked out OK for City in the end at CAS: in other words, what was probably a calculated gamble paid off. We're not at the stage of deciding whether to run a similar risk with the PL as far as I can tell. We seem to have invited the PL to put up or shut up, and they seem unable as far as I can tell to do the former while remaining unwilling as yet to do the latter. If they ever do charge us, we'll have to see what the accusation is and take it from there.

The only other point I'd add is that City's uncompromising stance may be acting as a deterrent to the PL in trying to put forward a weak charge or two. They know we'll throw everything at fighting any accusation unless they can clearly prove it and I think we've done right to ensure that they understand the point.

You bloody law types, why use 100 words when 1000 will do;)

Keep it simple for us bish, bosh, bang types, eh?

Good to see you posting a bit more, mate!

Hope all doing okay and your mum getting any help she needs.

 

[petrusha]

You bloody law types, why use 100 words when 1000 will do;)

Keep it simple for us bish, bosh, bang types, eh?

Good to see you posting a bit more, mate!

Hope all doing okay and your mum getting any help she needs.

Re the bolded part - guilty as charged! ;)

Thanks for the kind words. My situation hasn't changed but I've started to cope with it a bit better. My mum will need help at some point soon as she's in her late eighties, but I currently have a long video call every day. She's in decent spirits, very active and keeping pretty healthy.

 

[Dirty Harry]

You bloody law types, why use 100 words when 1000 will do;)

Keep it simple for us bish, bosh, bang types, eh?

Good to see you posting a bit more, mate!

Hope all doing okay and your mum getting any help she needs.

I know that first bit is said in jest mate, but for me (and muppets like me) , Petrusha just has a way with words that explains complex situations in such an easy to follow and understand way.

Thanks for taking the time to type all that Petrusha, always a great read.

 

[Gazza]

Speaking of betting company sponsors - It always seems to me that our government want it both ways with gambling, they like to pretend they don't approve of it and at the same time don't mind raking in £ millions (billions?) from its taxation each year.
If it is legal, and it is and has been for years, then treat it as legal and stop treating it like some unwanted problem child.

 

[petrusha]

I know that first bit is said in jest mate, but for me (and muppets like me) , Petrusha just has a way with words that explains complex situations in such an easy to follow and understand way.

Thanks for taking the time to type all that Petrusha, always a great read.

Thanks, mate. Much appreciated.

 

[richards30]

Could we counter sue the PL for damaging our reputation?
To have a court case ruling on decisions and dealing with their investigations for over 4 years without any charge has resulted in unprecedented criticism and multitudes of negative press articles inferring guilt for breaching FFP and alluding owner sponsorship etc.
It's an utter liberty they've been taking which for evidence already ruled on by CAS as being unsupported in any way is just plain wrong and unjust in my opinion.

We should certainly look into it!