ICYMI - Seeing the Wood for FFPs - 2 part analysis (Semi-long reads)

[Norbiton]

but it's harder to imagine the AC being quite so slapdash or biased, particularly when you consider one of its number is a lawyer from the same firm as Lord Pannick. ...

Do we know that Flint was on the panel? They don't need all five of them, only three, and it was suggested that his links with UAE would cause him to stand down.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Hi

I am a Watford supporter although I lived in Manchester in the past and spoke to Manchester City fans. I just wanted to say that FFP the way its designed is terrible for the sport. It limits competition as its perfectly OK for clubs to spend whatever they like if they get big sponsorship deals ( which increase with regular Champions League participation), its OK for a team to go into crippling debt but its not OK for an owner to invest their own money ( good owners care about the club more than a commercial sponsor does) in order to bridge the gap to regular Champions League teams who get the biggest natural income. In other words big sponsorship deals are 'natural' and 'good' income according to the current rules but generous money from an owner is ' doping' and 'cheating'.

My team Watford would probably be a non league or at best League 2 team for most of the past 40 years if Elton John had not invested funds into the team he supports in the 1970s and 1980s. If FFP was around in the 1970s and 1980s Elton John would almost certainly not of arrived at Watford, in division 4 upon his arrival, Graham Taylor would not of been appointed, and Watford would not of stormed through the each of the leagues before remarkably finishing 2nd in the 1st division in the 1982-83 season. Elton John would not of arrived at Watford with FFP in place because he would have been unable to invest his own money and have as much influence on the club as he did in the 1970s and 1980s. Other clubs such as Arsenal would not have the history or stature they do without massive investment in the 1930s. They were known as the Bank Of England due to spending vast amounts of money on players and stadium developments. They broke the British transfer record by spending 10 grand on David Jack. This investment enabled Arsenal to win the league title 5 times in the 1930s.

Regarding Manchester City's appeal I read the articles posted and understood most of the points made. It seems a ludicrous that UEFA appeared to break its own rules i.e. opening up a case from years ago that already had a settlement based on a few hacked emails. What I wanted to ask is that as far as I understand UEFA were willing to give Manchester City a small punishment last December if Manchester City's owners admitted guilt. Why not just admit guilt and get the small punishment instead of risking a far more severe punishment which is what has happened? I am guessing is was a matter of principle as your owners believed they were innocent and had stringently kept to FFP rules.

Spot on. FFP is the end of any club's dreams, even if those dreams seemed impossible. If only all fans outside of Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Chelsea realised that. There's not one thing that makes those clubs any more special than the other 88 clubs except that they were rich at the right time to make the rules.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Do we know that Flint was on the panel? They don't need all five of them, only three, and it was suggested that his links with UAE would cause him to stand down.

No idea. It’s my big concern though. They (the AC) looked at our evidence, deemed the breaches ‘serious’ and whacked a 2 year ban on us. Would they have really done that if our evidence was as compelling as we’ve been saying?

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

No idea. It’s my big concern though. They (the AC) looked at our evidence, deemed the breaches ‘serious’ and whacked a 2 year ban on us. Would they have really done that if our evidence was as compelling as we’ve been saying?

When we look at it like this, the principle of Occam’s razor would suggest that they meted out such a severe punishment as they simply didn’t have the irrefutable evidence to consider - and thus went off whatever they had been provided with.

That’s where my money would be.

 

[slbsn]

Is that not a very serious concern from our point of view? It's all very well the monkeys at the IC rushing everything through without due process, but it's harder to imagine the AC being quite so slapdash or biased, particularly when you consider one of its number is a lawyer from the same firm as Lord Pannick. Are City just bullshitting about the irrefutable nature of the evidence they've provided, as I can't think of a reason why we wouldn't submit it? I'd be interested to know your take on it.....

Firstly we don't know what City submitted. We don't know if there was a hearing. We don't even know the allegations. Sometimes, decisions of this nature can only take account of whatever is put before them as if no other evidence existed. All this means it's difficult to be sure.

But I am strongly of the view that despite the "semi independent" nature of the AC, they wouldn't ignore "irrefutable" evidence or points. Nobody likes to be appealed and overturned.

So City's confidence is great but it doesn't mean they are correct or even if they are, that they cant still lose. No barrister would give you more than a 70% prospect of success given the litigation risk on anything.

Point of detail - barristers are not in firms - chambers are collectives of self employed barristers. It's common for 2 QCs to face off vs each other on a case. But credibility wise, the AC judges are generally high quality.

 

[slbsn]

Regarding Manchester City's appeal I read the articles posted and understood most of the points made. It seems a ludicrous that UEFA appeared to break its own rules i.e. opening up a case from years ago that already had a settlement based on a few hacked emails. What I wanted to ask is that as far as I understand UEFA were willing to give Manchester City a small punishment last December if Manchester City's owners admitted guilt. Why not just admit guilt and get the small punishment instead of risking a far more severe punishment which is what has happened? I am guessing is was a matter of principle as your owners believed they were innocent and had stringently kept to FFP rules.

Could be they are sure they are right, didn't want to accept another punishment for the same thing given it didn't end the issue last time, maybe they feel like they have to clear their name - we just don't know. Very few actual details are public. Remember, we don't even know the precise allegations or, in particular, how they are distinguished (if at all) from those matters settled in 2014.

 

[ballbag]

Fantastic articles there. Thanks for going through the trouble of going through all the scarcely available documents and providing the links. It makes a lot more sense to me now.

May I also applaud your disclaimer at the bottom of each article. I would love to see a few of the journalists employ a disclaimer in their articles too. Something along the lines of... "We don't have a clue about any of this".

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Firstly we don't know what City submitted. We don't know if there was a hearing. We don't even know the allegations. Sometimes, decisions of this nature can only take account of whatever is put before them as if no other evidence existed. All this means it's difficult to be sure.

But I am strongly of the view that despite the "semi independent" nature of the AC, they wouldn't ignore "irrefutable" evidence or points. Nobody likes to be appealed and overturned.

So City's confidence is great but it doesn't mean they are correct or even if they are, that they cant still lose. No barrister would give you more than a 70% prospect of success given the litigation risk on anything.

Point of detail - barristers are not in firms - chambers are collectives of self employed barristers. It's common for 2 QCs to face off vs each other on a case. But credibility wise, the AC judges are generally high quality.

Cheers Stefan, your insight is greatly appreciated. I didn’t realise there might not even have been a hearing. There are some many imponderables for the laymen to get their heads around, it borders on mesmerising. I have next to no idea what’s going on, but I do get the vibe that the AC are not a bunch of cowboys and (from a City point of view) that worries me, assuming City did actually present the evidence they believed was irrefutable

 

[Marvin]

Firstly we don't know what City submitted. We don't know if there was a hearing. We don't even know the allegations. Sometimes, decisions of this nature can only take account of whatever is put before them as if no other evidence existed. All this means it's difficult to be sure.

But I am strongly of the view that despite the "semi independent" nature of the AC, they wouldn't ignore "irrefutable" evidence or points. Nobody likes to be appealed and overturned.

So City's confidence is great but it doesn't mean they are correct or even if they are, that they cant still lose. No barrister would give you more than a 70% prospect of success given the litigation risk on anything.

Point of detail - barristers are not in firms - chambers are collectives of self employed barristers. It's common for 2 QCs to face off vs each other on a case. But credibility wise, the AC judges are generally high quality.

UEFA's statement said, "The Adjudicatory Chamber, having considered all the evidence, has found that Manchester City Football Club committed serious breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations by overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016.

The Adjudicatory Chamber has also found that in breach of the regulations the Club failed to cooperate in the investigation of this case by the CFCB."

That's not detailed but for that to amount to two years sanction I think they must be alleging that the Etihad deal has been overstated. Does that require an army of lawyers to defeat?

I requires contracts, accounts and statements from the parties concerned. I find it difficult to see how the AC reached their verdict as I am sure that City would have been able to substantiate the etihad deal. When it was announced the press had it down as £40-50m pa. I think the Football Leaks valued it as £67.5m.

It's guesswork. 2 years seems to me ridiculous. The Etihad sponsorship must be a very valuable contract and there should be industry ways of benchmarking it.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

No idea. It’s my big concern though. They (the AC) looked at our evidence, deemed the breaches ‘serious’ and whacked a 2 year ban on us. Would they have really done that if our evidence was as compelling as we’ve been saying?

Whilst you’re often a little on the glass half Empty side, EB, I must say I concur with this view. City have no choice but to be bullish, whatever the truth. Some fans might be getting a bit carried away by this.

Hope you’re well, mate.