UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I don't know...beware of Korma. ;)

Don't tikka the piss mate, this thread is handi for me!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

All of this discussion of procedure is wrong. Ignore the procedure at earlier stages - this is like a new trial of the "law" and the facts

But if, for example, City could demonstrate that the supposedly independent IC & AC had been leant on to basically hand out a ban regardless of the evidence we originally provided in support of our case, would that not be fairly crucial in them forming a view?

 

[KS55]

I was saying it could not be the case that they could not just look at procedure because of my above explanation in which CAS decide we are right but have to side with UEFA if they followed procedure and to extend it further it would mean nowhere to go with appeal ( well maybe Swiss or EU court ) to the poster who said that they could only look at procedure a few pages back

Ok, sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
I think he mixed it up with what happens if there us a further appeal to the swiss courts.
In any case, we are now told that rule 57 means the proceedings wiil be de novo, which cures previous failure of process, so our appeal will be on the merits of UEFA's findings of fact and law only.

 

[KS55]

The CAS President is Mr Manfred Nan?

Let's hope City aren't blinded by the light and up the junction!

The case will be decided in 5..4..3..2..1..

 

[KS55]

Up the Junction. Does this refer to Watford Junction ? Right, I'll give this one a go... We're replacing Leroy Sane with Troy Deeney ??

No, it means that our appeal will be led by Mr. Deeney, who has court experience.

 

[Dirty Harry]

If you break down the written submissions City made at CAS 1 (https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf p14) you can see the likely main strands of argument at CAS 2:

a) ...the Investigation conducted by [UEFA] was not conducted in accordance with procedural fairness and due process and was contrary to legitimate expectations; IRRELEVANT NOW AS CAS IS A DE NOVO TRIAL
(b) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being periods covered by the 2014 Settlement Agreement; A KEY ISSUE
(c) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of any time prior to 16 May 2014 being five years prior to the date of the Referral Decision; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(d) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches of the [UEFA CL&FFPR] in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being outside of the current monitoring period; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(e) a declaration that the Swiss law personality rights of the Appellant have been violated by the Leaks and that Respondent is responsible for such violation; LARGELY IRRELEVANT

Win on b,c and/or d and the case appears to collapse. Lose on those and the case will be judged on the factual merits. I do believe UEFA will need to do more than wave the Pearce "we can do what we want" email extract around.

Thanks for that PD.
With regards to a), if this is indeed the case (deemed irrelevant now at CAS) it seems to me that UEFA (and probably City) have known this all along should it end up at CAS, and maybe points to the reasoning (wholly or partly) to our response "in the first instance", seems to me, UEFA have ran roughshod over their own rules procedures to get this over the line in time, which seems at odds given they purport to run a "fair and objective process".
Surely a court of arbitration can look at that and at the very least take an extremely dim view as to the motives ? even more so if we can show that it was as a result of encouragement (maybe even behest) from certain individuals connected to our direct competitors, and therefore still worth pushing that point ?

 

[slbsn]

But if, for example, City could demonstrate that the supposedly independent IC & AC had been leant on to basically hand out a ban regardless of the evidence we originally provided in support of our case, would that not be fairly crucial in them forming a view?

a) we are never going to be able to prove that at CAS
b) this wouldn't be procedural irregularities - this would in essence be a case of bad faith or even "fraud". I don't know what the rules on allegations that the case itself was pure bad faith or illegal manipulation but its a very serious allegation. I would be very surprised if that was a tenet of City's case at CAS
c) if UEFA only went ahead on such grounds, City will win easily on any of the arguments set out and on the factual merits so all good.

 

[slbsn]

Thanks for that PD.
With regards to a), if this is indeed the case (deemed irrelevant now at CAS) it seems to me that UEFA (and probably City) have known this all along should it end up at CAS, and maybe points to the reasoning (wholly or partly) to our response "in the first instance", seems to me, UEFA have ran roughshod over their own rules procedures to get this over the line in time, which seems at odds given they purport to run a "fair and objective process".
Surely a court of arbitration can look at that and at the very least take an extremely dim view as to the motives ? even more so if we can show that it was as a result of encouragement (maybe even behest) from certain individuals connected to our direct competitors, and therefore still worth pushing that point ?

My response to PB below covers this. It will always come back to whether we can prove it. It will be ignored if we can't

 

[robbie brewer]

What I mean is if CAS can only deal with procedure lets say UEFA have looked at all the evidence and done so in the correct timescale and think we are guilty then even if CAS think we are innocent then they cannot clear us because procedure was followed that clearly make no sense.

Its not entirely clear what evidence is against us and what evidence we have or even what we are supposed to have done wrong. However it seems that we are alleged to have received money from a related party and that money might be of an inflated amount. Thats not what our accounts have shown or what UEFA have ever said before tho they did want to. So our view the view of the auditors is different to that of UEFA so its subjective or at least vague or open to interpritation. If CAS can only look at process then they could think we are on to a winner in relation to our evidence about related party and values etc but judge that UEFA have followed due process and therefore find us guilty because they can only look at process not facts values of sponsorship related party etc. Even if they can look at more than process do they have the capabilities to look at sponsorship values and related party ? I seems very complex specialist time consuming no really sport or even sports governance related.

If the evidence shows we are innocent and UEFA have reviewed the evidence and still found us guilty then they clearly haven't followed procedure because to ignore the evidence is clearly a breach of procedure.

 

[bluemanchester]

If City are Kompany and Aguero who in your opinion are UEFA represented by?

At the end of the hearing I hope UEFAs representatives resemble spit the commentator and Gaz " change my mind every day" Neville

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

If the evidence shows we are innocent and UEFA have reviewed the evidence and still found us guilty then they clearly haven't followed procedure because to ignore the evidence is clearly a breach of procedure.

The old, "You must either be shit, stupid or bent." conclusion.

 

[The Colonel]

He said something like "IF they have deceived us......" Then some speculation about punishment. The 'IF' will let him largely off the hook on this particular point, altho' it is not good form for the investigator to talk about punishment before the case has begun.

Exactly, he was playing to his crowd.

 

[Coatigan]

i wonder, even if we are exonerated, wether we’d still have grounds for compensation against UEFA for the damage their process has caused us.

I read somewhere some time ago that both sides agreed not to pursue damages against each other whatever way it goes.

 

[Dirty Harry]

a) we are never going to be able to prove that at CAS
b) this wouldn't be procedural irregularities - this would in essence be a case of bad faith or even "fraud". I don't know what the rules on allegations that the case itself was pure bad faith or illegal manipulation but its a very serious allegation. I would be very surprised if that was a tenet of City's case at CAS
c) if UEFA only went ahead on such grounds, City will win easily on any of the arguments set out and on the factual merits so all good.

Thanks for that mate, I'm aware you've probably forgotten more about the subject than I know (and you're probably very busy too), don't think I agree on the 'never' but that's being pedantic, I still think it would be wise and good practice to put all our concerns on the table at CAS (along with any supporting evidence) so it's on record, along with UEFA's responses to that, should we have a need to take it further.

Seems UEFA have been quite smart in how they've actually played this (in effect maybe even circumnavigating their own process), I think we too have anticipated this, hence the "shocked but not surprised" and the "in the first instance" responses, if so that alone should give us confidence and proof we're thinking ahead and anticipating their moves.

Thanks again ProjectDriver.

 

[KS55]

So, it looks like we are all agreed......City will piss this. :-)

 

[slbsn]

Thanks for that mate, I'm aware you've probably forgotten more about the subject than I know (and you're probably very busy too), don't think I agree on the 'never' but that's being pedantic, I still think it would be wise and good practice to put all our concerns on the table at CAS (along with any supporting evidence) so it's on record, along with UEFA's responses to that, should we have a need to take it further.

Seems UEFA have been quite smart in how they've actually played this (in effect maybe even circumnavigating their own process), I think we too have anticipated this, hence the "shocked but not surprised" and the "in the first instance" responses, if so that alone should give us confidence and proof we're thinking ahead and anticipating their moves.

Thanks again ProjectDriver.

Running weak arguments or unproven allegations is never a good strategy. Tends to waste time, piss judges off, suggests you don't have better arguments. So "never" is of course exaggerated but "in practice, never" is more accurate.

As to whether UEFA have played it well. If they win at CAS, they have. If they lose they haven't.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I read somewhere some time ago that both sides agreed not to pursue damages against each other whatever way it goes.

I doubt that's true mate, seeing as we sought damages at the first hearing, and uefa have decided to fine us 30m euros, which is just another word for damages.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Running weak arguments or unproven allegations is never a good strategy. Tends to waste time, piss judges off, suggests you don't have better arguments. So "never" is of course exaggerated but "in practice, never" is more accurate.

As to whether UEFA have played it well. If they win at CAS, they have. If they lose they haven't.

To be fair mate, at this point I think there's a lot of guess work and supposition as to our evidence (if any) on that part so I think it's premature to conclude anything as weak at this stage, IF we do decide to bring those things to the table, then I think it's a fair assumption our team think it is anything but and will do so in the belief it has merit, I guess we'll find out in the course of time, but I still think it wise, gives UEFA less wiggle room in any future events, that's as I see it anyway, as for the judges getting pissed off, when don't they ;-)!

 

[Akpowell]

So, it looks like we are all agreed......City will piss this. :-)

Let's not throw our caps in the air just yet

 

[Coatigan]

I doubt that's true mate, seeing as we sought damages at the first hearing, and uefa have decided to fine us 30m euros, which is just another word for damages.

Perhaps. Just sharing that i read it somewhere. Wouldn't rush to believe it, but it certainly would not surprise me either given what is at stake.