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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There’s far too many lawyers in this thread for my liking.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What a difference a month makes.

Are you referring to the weather?

 

[pudge]

What a difference a month makes.

There's a difference in being found not guilty but prepubescent scrotes on Twatter posting "Oil Money FC" 10 seconds after every City post.

 

[dickie davies]

Could we ask the twats to change "players" to "Lawyers"

 

[domalino]

There's a difference in being found not guilty but prepubescent scrotes on Twatter posting "Oil Money FC" 10 seconds after every City post.

Theres also a difference between "we will accept nothing but total exoneration" and pragmatism lads, we'll never be exonerated anyway.

I always believe Tolmie posts what he's heard or thinks on good faith, but I did think it was a bit funny that he thought too many people had a vision of a glorious victory given his previous bullish comments, celebratory hall and oates videos etc. were a not insignificant part of creating that expectation in the thread.

 

[TedofChume]

@ProjectDriver

Some information is provided in sections 61-63 of Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf as to what those articles A-92, A-93 & A-94 are and why they were admitted:

"The Panel noted that Exhibit A-92 is a publication in a newspaper and therefore a publicly accessible document that was not available at the time MCFC filed its Appeal Brief (i.e. 11 June 2019). The Panel also considered it appropriate for MCFC to keep the Panel updated on alleged further leaks to the media by UEFA considering the similar allegations already expressed in the Appeal Brief"

So A-92 is an article published in a newspaper about leaks from UEFA regarding City and the FFP Ban after 11th June 2019, we just don't know which one!

"A-93 and A-94 are letters sent by UEFA to MCFC on 11 and 29 July 2019 that were not available at the time of filing the Appeal Brief"

In section 63, as I read it as the letter sent on 29th July 2019 confirms a scoping document existed setting out how the accountancy firm were to audit City's accounts and that it had never seen shared with City. Ie City were never told what UEFA were investigating, so how could they defend themselves or participate?

 

[HelloCity]

I know this is a bit unfair, but crikey what a difference a month makes.

Getting a bit nervous TH?

In the original post he means legally and in the second he just means in the eye of our haters who will never accept anything.

 

[slbsn]

@ProjectDriver

Some information is provided in sections 61-63 of Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf as to what those articles A-92, A-93 & A-94 are and why they were admitted:

"The Panel noted that Exhibit A-92 is a publication in a newspaper and therefore a publicly accessible document that was not available at the time MCFC filed its Appeal Brief (i.e. 11 June 2019). The Panel also considered it appropriate for MCFC to keep the Panel updated on alleged further leaks to the media by UEFA considering the similar allegations already expressed in the Appeal Brief"

So A-92 is an article published in a newspaper about leaks from UEFA regarding City and the FFP Ban after 11th June 2019, we just don't know which one!

"A-93 and A-94 are letters sent by UEFA to MCFC on 11 and 29 July 2019 that were not available at the time of filing the Appeal Brief"

In section 63, as I read it as the letter sent on 29th July 2019 confirms a scoping document existed setting out how the accountancy firm were to audit City's accounts and that it had never seen shared with City. Ie City were never told what UEFA were investigating, so how could they defend themselves or participate?

Good spot.

 

[dickie davies]

@ProjectDriver

Some information is provided in sections 61-63 of Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf as to what those articles A-92, A-93 & A-94 are and why they were admitted:

"The Panel noted that Exhibit A-92 is a publication in a newspaper and therefore a publicly accessible document that was not available at the time MCFC filed its Appeal Brief (i.e. 11 June 2019). The Panel also considered it appropriate for MCFC to keep the Panel updated on alleged further leaks to the media by UEFA considering the similar allegations already expressed in the Appeal Brief"

So A-92 is an article published in a newspaper about leaks from UEFA regarding City and the FFP Ban after 11th June 2019, we just don't know which one!

"A-93 and A-94 are letters sent by UEFA to MCFC on 11 and 29 July 2019 that were not available at the time of filing the Appeal Brief"

In section 63, as I read it as the letter sent on 29th July 2019 confirms a scoping document existed setting out how the accountancy firm were to audit City's accounts and that it had never seen shared with City. Ie City were never told what UEFA were investigating, so how could they defend themselves or participate?

You are Lord Pannick and I claim my prize ;-)

That section 63 scope document is an Ace

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Thanks, P, that is very helpful because the longer this goes on and the more I think of it the flimsier the case against City seems to get. I do struggle to see how emails can be held to prove anything because they not in any way a legally binding statement of what was actually done and they're not even (as this makes obvious) a secure communication. In this case as well there seems a clear conflict between emails on the one hand and City's accounts and Etihad's statement on the other. I struggle to see what evidence UEFA can have which trumps ours. Any suggestions?!

Totally agree, seems to me that uefa are just running with this £8M p/a from Etihad. Hence their statement about overstating sponsorship, and the break even information in our accounts from 2012/16. Seems a very flimsy case at best.

 

[TedofChume]

You are Lord Pannick and I claim my prize ;-)

That section 63 scope document is an Ace

lol thanks, I stumbled upon that document a week or so ago and posted it on here. I think it really helps City's case.

 

[TedofChume]

Good spot.

I''ve been trying to scroll through previous posts but there are so many I can't find it. Did you publish a link or some analysis on here of this document? If so where would I find it?

 

[laserblue]

There’s far too many lawyers in this thread for my liking.

But how many of them are drunk small claims lawyers?

 

[slbsn]

You are Lord Pannick and I claim my prize ;-)

That section 63 scope document is an Ace

Hard to say. A scoping document sounds pretty benign to me. Every engagement letter with an accountant would have the scope of work.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I feel confident if City are but worry about the pressure CAS will be under from the crooks at UEFA like Gill.

If anybody contacts any of the cas officials attempting to use influence, then they are duty bound to report it.

 

[TedofChume]

Hard to say. A scoping document sounds pretty benign to me. Every engagement letter with an accountant would have the scope of work.

To me it's much more forceful than that, section 63 reads

"The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances. "

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But how many of them are drunk small claims lawyers?

Only one as far as I’m aware.

 

[slbsn]

To me it's much more forceful than that, section 63 reads

"The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances. "

Yes I have read it. It merely says "these two documents together could be relevant." Thats all. "Could be relevant".

 

[TedofChume]

Yes I have read it. It merely says "these two documents together could be relevant." Thats all. "Could be relevant".

That's why you practice law and I don't, thank you. I was attaching too much weight to the first sentence.

 

[slbsn]

That's why you practice law and I don't, thank you. I was attaching too much weight to the first sentence.

The first sentence was CAS saying this statement from City had validity "[City] argued that it should not be prevented from relying on these documents because UEFA chose not to disclose the existence of such evidence until after the deadlines for MCFC to file its submissions with the CAS had passed."