Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Apologies for the delay in replying. You're right that CAS didn't consider them an issue. That's because they noted that UEFA looked at the related party issue but didn't include anything in the charges. So there was nothing for CAS to debate or come to a decision on.Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point but seems pretty clear that neither fair market nor RP was in issue by the time they got to CAS. Certainly there was no debate about whether they were or weren’t RPs in evidence
The point was that UEFA brought up RPs in 2014, then again in 2018, and the PL has again brought up the subject. Your post on the failure of the sponsors to declare City as a related party, and the fact that they had other auditors who presumably took that decision independently of BDO and City, further proved that it appears to be a very weak line of attack. I think we agree on that.
It's also worth restating that UEFA knew about the Fordham arrangement prior to 2018 yet brought no charges over that. They went with the disguised equity investment case, which they presumably thought was their strongest case, but which was demolished by the CAS panel.
Unless the PL has evidence that was withheld from CAS in support of these charges, then it seems highly unlikely the outcome will be any different.
Last edited: