City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Keith Moon]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I believe Martin Samuel was briefed by City last night that Paris have been fined just £20m, nothing else.

L'Equipe seem to be as guilty as the rest, in terms of speculating.

In turn, the Press Association lifted that article, which Sky and everybody else then chose to run with.

It would appear the blind are still leading the blind.

This is the man leaking storys to the Press Association: Andy Elliott @andyelliott4

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I would imagine that CAS will only rule on whether UEFA have framed, followed and applied their own rules correctly, rather than whether those rules are consistent with EU law or not. So we could exhaust the process via CAS but still have (different) grounds to challenge in the ECJ.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am 90% certain that CAS will find in our favour but if they don't and we take it through the European Courts
does anybody know if we could get an injunction preventing the CL taking place until a decision is made?
I'm assuming that we've been banned by that stage. Legally speaking just how dirty can we fight on this?

Of course we can, it's standard to suspend a punishment if there's a question of the punishments legality. If you don't plead guilty you have to be proven guilty in court before being punished, simple as.

Is that what he is asking, though?

I read it as are City able to suspend the entire Champions League competition, until our own fate is determined?

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I am 90% certain that CAS will find in our favour but if they don't and we take it through the European Courts
does anybody know if we could get an injunction preventing the CL taking place until a decision is made?
I'm assuming that we've been banned by that stage. Legally speaking just how dirty can we fight on this?

Of course we can, it's standard to suspend a punishment if there's a question of the punishments legality. If you don't plead guilty you have to be proven guilty in court before being punished, simple as.

Is that what he is asking, though?

I read it as are City able to suspend the entire Champions League competition, until our own fate is determined?

Ah sorry, misread it. I presume the fine and squad limit (if true) would be suspended, e.g. FFP suspended instead of the Champions League, wouldn't make any sense to do otherwise.
EDIT: We wouldn't be questioning/challenging the legality of the Champions League after all.

 

[welsh_andy]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I believe Martin Samuel was briefed by City last night that Paris have been fined just £20m, nothing else.

L'Equipe seem to be as guilty as the rest, in terms of speculating.

In turn, the Press Association lifted that article, which Sky and everybody else then chose to run with.

It would appear the blind are still leading the blind.

if that is case there should be fucking uproar

 

[Chris in London]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

I'm wary of taking a different view to you Chris but it's my understanding that CAS is a Swiss court effectively and operates under Swiss law. They aren't in the EU but CAS does comply with ECHR. The only right of appeal is to a Swiss Federal court and then only on the basis of process, rather than a point of law. So I doubt there would be any ability to refer cases to ECJ.

You are right about CAS being a swiss body and an appeal lying from CAS to Swiss Federal court, but a reference to the ECJ is not an appeal per se, it is a request for a ruling. As I say, I just don't know whether CAS has the power to refer EU law questions to the ECJ or whether the ECJ has the power to accept references from CAS.

It would actually be a more curious situation if references were not admissible by the ECJ than if they were. Plainly, UEFA operates within the EU (albeit not exclusively) and therefore has to comply with EU law. If it did not, it would be operating illegally within the EU member states that are also members of UEFA. City are entitled to rely on provisions of EU law in dealing with UEFA for the simple reason that if UEFA don't want to be subject to EU law they take their competition and play it where EU law doesn't apply. That is a non starter for obvious reasons.

So given that City are able to rely on EU law in the CAS, and the CAS is not and cannot be the final arbiter of EU law, it follows that you could have conflicting judgments - one saying one thing in the CAS, the other saying something contrary in the ECJ. I don't think either court would welcome such a situation.

Having thought about it more, even assuming there cannot be a reference to the ECJ it may be that you get to the same point by a different route - e.g. by the CAS adjourning any proceedings involving City and UEFA until a case can be heard in the ECJ deciding that FFPR does/does not offend EU competition law.

CAS normal make decisions fairly quickly, and in this instance would need to make a decision before next season's Champion's League begins as the punishment would be due at that point. If they adjourn and essentially tell the EU they need to make a ruling, then that will take a lengthy period of time. If that were the case it'll be interesting to see what UEFA does with regards to the punishment, do they apply it and run the risk of it being deemed illegal/unfair at a later point (and the obvious action from City that this would invite) or do they delay any punishment until the final decision is made?

Its an interesting one, whether a governing body can impose an sanction while the legality of the rule it is enforcing is tested. The short answer is you can, because the rule is valid (and can be enforced) until a court says it isn't. Whether UEFA has the cojones to enforce while the legality of their sanction is analysed is another matter.

About 25 years ago Sunday trading laws were much stricter than they are now. You couldn't buy most stuff on a sunday, and supermarkets were closed. The laws on Sunday trading were enforced by local authorities trading standards departments.

Then I think it was Tesco started challenging the legitimacy of the sunday trading laws, and started opening on Sundays. One of the London boroughs went to court some time around 1989/1990 to get an injunction to prevent them from breaching sunday trading laws while the lawfulness of the sunday trading measures was tested int he courts. Tesco (if it was them) asked the Borough (Newnham?) to give what is known as an undertaking in damages - namely, an enforceable promise to the court that if the sunday trading laws were not upheld, but Tesco had lost profits by not being able to trade on a sunday, the Borough would pay damages to Tesco based on their lost profits.

That potentially exposed the Borough to millions of pounds if the sunday trading laws were not upheld (they weren't). So the Borough refused to give the undertaking, and because they would not agree to compensate Tesco IF they lost, the court refused to grant the injunction.

That is a long winded way of saying that UEFA might be able to enforce their sanction whilst the legality of FFPR is debated, but if they did impose a sanction for breaching regulations that themselves are later found to be unlawful, they may end up being very very deeply in the shit. City - and anyone else subjected to sanctions - would be entitled to compensation for their losses incurred by an unlawful procedure.

 

[Chancy Termites]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

So it seems that UEFA have reduced PSG's deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority from €200m per season down to €80m per season for a deal that does not involve stadium naming rights, etc. whilst we're getting hammered over our potential £35m per season deal with Etihad.

It looks like the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority should be one of our new sponsors then. €80m per season seems fair. Let them sponsor our footbridge and our training kits, they can sponsor everything that Etihad doesn't. And while we're there, let's renegotiate with Etihad, seeing as €80m per season for kit rights only is the new benchmark in European football.

Emirates sponsor PSG's kits, QTA pay them for 'advice'

I wonder what PSG are advising QTA on?

Who better to ask for advice about tourism in the Arabian peninsula than a French football club. Money well spent and I'm sure that millions of of stag and hen parties will heading over to Doha any minute now.....

 

[jonmcity]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Found this about the issue not sure how true. But All our deals are legit and can be proven in court I am sure.

Why is City’s fine so large?
When City filed their accounts, on the face of it they looked to have nominally passed the FFP Break Even test (after permitted exclusions). So even if a few items are adjusted downwards, it was not immediately apparent why they have been given the same punishment as PSG (a club that failed hugely and seem to have made little effort to comply). However on examination, City’s large fine seems to be due to some of the detail within the FFP rules - this is probably also why the club are reported to be so unhappy with the terms being offered to them.

The FFP rules include a provision to allow clubs to exclude wages paid in 2011/12 season to players who were at the club when the rules were introduced (May 2010). City have advised the press that around £80m of wages fall into this category. Without this exclusion City fail hugely. Crucially, the exclusion can only be applied if a number of criteria are ALL met. One of these criteria is that the wages paid to these long-standing players were “equal or higher than the deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012”. See page 94 of FFP Toolkit for relevant section

During 2011/12 City reported a loss of £97m. After a number of permitted exclusions are made, City’s adjusted deficit for the 2011/12 season is probably around £78m - If the relevant excludable wages were £80m, City are therefore right on the edge, with only a couple of million lee-way. Crucially, press reports suggest that the Etihad deal was adjusted downwards (and possibly a £13m Intellectual Property sale may also have been reduced by the CFCB). This would have been enough to ensure the wages exclusion could not be used. Rather than City recording a narrow fail, they are probably looking at a technical fail of over £100m - a figure that would seem to put them in the PSG bracket

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Emirates sponsor PSG's kits, QTA pay them for 'advice'

I wonder what PSG are advising QTA on?

Who better to ask for advice about tourism in the Arabian peninsula than a French football club. Money well spent and I'm sure that millions of of stag and hen parties will heading over to Doha any minute now.....

Let's be honest, it's no more absurd than anything else in this whole sorry situation.

 

[cibaman]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

....I'm just sitting back until some truth comes out on this. Whole load of scaremongering and exaggerating, it sounds to me.

[/URL]

you're following Tolmie's lead then?

I think it's quite possible that there are a lot of ill informed rumours regarding the scale of any punishment, particularly in comparison with psg.

But i don't think there is much doubt that city have turned down the settlement offer. And I doubt that we would do that unless the proposed punishment is very severe. Our owners have opposed FFP in principle but have been very pragmatic in trying to live with it. I just can't see them refusing to accept a slap on the wrist out of principle. So I do fear that the punishment will be very tough and very unfair