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

[cookster]

Under FFP the source of funds IS important, if they're disguised owner investment. The emails being hacked led UEFA to suspect that was the case but even if it was, that's allowable if the sponsor is classed as a related party and the revenue from that sponsorship is in line with what a non-related party would pay.

If I recall correctly, UEFA tried to argue that all the Abu Dhabi companies were related parties but this never really got resolved as it made little difference at the time. We didn't agree about related parties as we've never declared them as such in our accounts (which we are required to do when there are transactions with related parties) but we did agree not to increase a couple of what were described as second-tier sponsorships (Aabar and another).

Also, if I recall correctly, UEFA conceded that the Etihad sponsorship was in line with market value so however it was funded was irrelevant (according to their own). Now they're claiming there was disguised owner investment yet, in their 2014 investigation, that would have been OK according to their own classification of Etihad as a related party.

There's another thing that might be very relevant to our defence. Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the cheque paying our fine and it'd cleared in UEFA's account, they changed the FFP rules to allow a period of owner investment that might normally breach FFP rules, in the case of a change of ownership. I read about a case brought to CAS involving the US NASL and FIFA. This involved a club dropping out of the NASL but the club that won the second tier league weren't promoted. The appellant club claimed that FIFA rules mandated promotion and relegation and that the NASL had failed to implement that. CAS ruled that it wasn't necessarily what FIFA said but what they meant and how they applied the rule, and it would place more reliance on contemporaneous action than historic ones. FIFA hadn't enforced the rule on leagues that, when the rule was introduced, didn't have it and if I read it correctly, the ruling said that it clearly wasn't their intention to enforce it on leagues that didn't have it, whatever the rule actually said.

I do wonder if we could bring a case against UEFA claiming that they pursued us for breaching FFP yet their more contemporaneous intention was to allow a period of owner investment and that the main reason we failed in 2024 was that we accelerated investment before FFP came in whereas now we would have a period of grace. The real investment only started in 2009 and therefore the 4 year period of grace allowed under the current FFP rules would have ended in 2013, which is the period we've been punished for.

PB question about the alleged investigation from the PL. If CAS uphold UEFA's ban and the new evidence is based on the hacked emails, can the PL also use this as evidence?
Isn't the Swiss/UK law different on using hacked data as evidence?
I suppose if it's now in the public domain the PL can use that convenient argument?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

This man is on the UEFA Executive Committee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser_Al-Khelaifi#Government_of_Qatar

Yet Soriano was blocked from being appointed. Given that UAE and Qatar do not get on is it too far-fetched to suggest there may be some high-level politics at play here? UEFA (along with FIFA) seem to have made their bed with the Qataris. Looks set for a titanic legal clash given the interests on our side (Chinese and US investment) I hope we drag them through the mud and fully expose the blatant protection racket that is FFP.

A great post. I think this is the root cause of everything. Buried away in a two-page spead in the Times on Saturday was a paragraph from Martin Zeigler which said: "There is belief among some in Abu Dhabi that the emails (The Pinto ones) were leaked by agents of Qatar." He also said that this is the reason why City didn't provide the full email trails or a detailed explanation of their context.
Al Khelaifi was a key player in the Qatar World Cup bid and Rick Parry also worked with the Qataris on that bid as a security adviser. Khelaifi is on the UEFA Exec Committee and Parry has recently stepped down from the UEFA Investigating Committee. At the same time Leterme was involved in the controversial deal with the Qataris not to sanction PSG.
So as far as City are concerned the entire senior structure of UEFA has been compromised so there's no point co-operating with them. This must also be why the Times has changed its stance on the whole story.

 

[gingerprince]

Seems City were highly confident with their positioning prior to the ban and fine incoming.

Either that was because they were highly confident or maybe we just had a pair of deuces.

If we only have pair of deuces, well, its going to be a somewhat painful few years or so.....

If we are still highly confident then i just hope that confidence is based around dealing with

an organisation like UEFA, not versus the normal legal process. I feel maybe, interpretation

is likely to be a key word. Remember, the Laporte Handball versus Spurs? Well David Ellerary,

later admitted, how the IFAB current penalty law is written, it shouldnt have been a penalty but

as it was the interpretation of the law to disallow all goals following attacking handball, its OK.

This is the crux, when laws are applied to other clubs they apply the law. However, when City

are involved theyll find a way of manipulating the law, up/down/left or right to our detriment.

They moved the FFP goalposts first time around knowing full well it would implicate on City in

a negative way and we took the pinch. This time it will be the "neutral" 3rd judge @ CAS. I feel

the verdict will read something like, MCFC have proven that, from the start, this investigation

has been leaked to the press to the detriment of MCFC and for that we apologise and will look

at systems to prevent it in future. We also agree with MCFC, that whilst technically they are not

guilty of x and y. We feel that they are guilty in not following "in principle" UEFA regulations etc.

 

[Cobwebcat]

No - I am saying we don't bother to challenge UEFA in the European Courts - we withdraw ourselves from their tournaments with all the other British teams doing likewise. What will the TV audiences be like for the CL if no British teams enter it bearing in mind how successful we have been in recent years?

Liverpool and United support UEFA some would say run it.

No offence but I don’t think you have been following this.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Under FFP the source of funds IS important, if they're disguised owner investment. The emails being hacked led UEFA to suspect that was the case but even if it was, that's allowable if the sponsor is classed as a related party and the revenue from that sponsorship is in line with what a non-related party would pay.

If I recall correctly, UEFA tried to argue that all the Abu Dhabi companies were related parties but this never really got resolved as it made little difference at the time. We didn't agree about related parties as we've never declared them as such in our accounts (which we are required to do when there are transactions with related parties) but we did agree not to increase a couple of what were described as second-tier sponsorships (Aabar and another).

Also, if I recall correctly, UEFA conceded that the Etihad sponsorship was in line with market value so however it was funded was irrelevant (according to their own). Now they're claiming there was disguised owner investment yet, in their 2014 investigation, that would have been OK according to their own classification of Etihad as a related party.

There's another thing that might be very relevant to our defence. Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the cheque paying our fine and it'd cleared in UEFA's account, they changed the FFP rules to allow a period of owner investment that might normally breach FFP rules, in the case of a change of ownership. I read about a case brought to CAS involving the US NASL and FIFA. This involved a club dropping out of the NASL but the club that won the second tier league weren't promoted. The appellant club claimed that FIFA rules mandated promotion and relegation and that the NASL had failed to implement that. CAS ruled that it wasn't necessarily what FIFA said but what they meant and how they applied the rule, and it would place more reliance on contemporaneous action than historic ones. FIFA hadn't enforced the rule on leagues that, when the rule was introduced, didn't have it and if I read it correctly, the ruling said that it clearly wasn't their intention to enforce it on leagues that didn't have it, whatever the rule actually said.

I do wonder if we could bring a case against UEFA claiming that they pursued us for breaching FFP yet their more contemporaneous intention was to allow a period of owner investment and that the main reason we failed in 2024 was that we accelerated investment before FFP came in whereas now we would have a period of grace. The real investment only started in 2009 and therefore the 4 year period of grace allowed under the current FFP rules would have ended in 2013, which is the period we've been punished for.

Very interesting and potentially very useful. What concerns me though is that our appeal is to CAS and the emphasis may be very firmly on the arbitration aspect of its work ie a compromise settlement where City are supposed to accept a reduced sanction. A one year ban is not acceptable and City have apparently stated that no sanction is acceptable. My fear is that this was, as the club stated, a case initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA according to laws introduced by UEFA and that CAS simply ensures that this process was not so flawed as to render the verdict "unsafe". In that scenario the cards are stacked heavily in UEFA's favour and I am concerned that CAS will not see it as its role to (re)examine much evidence and reinterpret it. This will apply to much of the evidence from the sponsorship deals and I don't believe that CAS is a court of law in the sense that it will pronounce on the admissibility of the Der Spiegel evidence and certainly won't pronounce on whether FFP is actually lawful at all. City will always be vulnerable to the use of FFP to involve us in the continuous distraction of a everlasting battle with governing bodies which have sold out to a cartel of clubs until the ECJ rules that the law protects the right of owners to invest, with no "sporting exception", and that clubs will act in conformity to that law rather than what UEFA thinks is good for "football".

 

[Dirty Harry]

Do city know the full details or is that part of uefa plan for us to go in blind ?

I would imagine City know the full extent mate or as close as, it's just not being made public as of yet by both sides, the alternative would surely be something like this :-

Uefa - We're banning you for 2 years and fining you 30+ million euro's for financial irregularities !
City - Oh and what are these financial irregularities ?
Uefa - We're not telling you !

 

[jollylescott]

I think the starting point is to examine the settlement agreement with UEFA from 16 May 2014. The timeline is interesting and I will comment upon that later.

I looked at that agreement, which covers 13/14, 14/15 and 15/16. These are the years, as well as 12/13, that the Adjudicatory Chamber (AC) are now alleging we ‘committed serious breaches of FFP by overstating it’s sponsorship revenue and the break-even information submitted to UEFA between 2012 and 2016’.

UEFA’s rules in effect place a 5 year time limit on investigations. This is relevant because they made the referral to the Investigatory Chamber ONE DAY before 5 years had elapsed from the 2014 settlement agreement (15 May 2019). In other words they are relying upon the date of the settlement agreement to then trigger the investigation going back MORE than 5 years. It’s honestly hard to understand how the judges on the AC accepted that the investigation could look into the period that had already been covered by the settlement agreement. This has to be one of City’s key arguments before CAS.

I think the other key point for City is that our accounts were duly monitored by both UEFA and our external auditors to ensure FFP compliance in the periods covered by the 2014 settlement agreement.

Having said all that, the AC was chaired by a senior European judge, and they found against us.

I can’t see how City can be so certain that we will win at CAS. If (I repeat if) we were offered a settlement by Ceferin that acknowledged some admission of wrongdoing, and a fine without a ban, in my opinion we should have grabbed it. This is simply because legal decisions can be very unpredictable, and they often take a long time to deliver. CAS may toss out the AC decision, they may partially overturn it, or they might simply agree with the AC, and it may not happen before the Chumps League starts. And that raises a whole new bunch of questions about whether they will let us play in the Chumps League next season pending the CAS decision.

 

[nixmith2]

Liverpool and United support UEFA some would say run it.

No offence but I don’t think you have been following this.

It's fine - I know what I am saying is 'pie in the sky', but it is what I wish would happen, if I had a magic wand.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

PB question about the alleged investigation from the PL. If CAS uphold UEFA's ban and the new evidence is based on the hacked emails, can the PL also use this as evidence?
Isn't the Swiss/UK law different on using hacked data as evidence?
I suppose if it's now in the public domain the PL can use that convenient argument?

I really couldn't answer that.

 

[John Wayne]

A great post. I think this is the root cause of everything. Buried away in a two-page spead in the Times on Saturday was a paragraph from Martin Zeigler which said: "There is belief among some in Abu Dhabi that the emails (The Pinto ones) were leaked by agents of Qatar." He also said that this is the reason why City didn't provide the full email trails or a detailed explanation of their context.
Al Khelaifi was a key player in the Qatar World Cup bid and Rick Parry also worked with the Qataris on that bid as a security adviser. Khelaifi is on the UEFA Exec Committee and Parry has recently stepped down from the UEFA Investigating Committee. At the same time Leterme was involved in the controversial deal with the Qataris not to sanction PSG.
So as far as City are concerned the entire senior structure of UEFA has been compromised so there's no point co-operating with them. This must also be why the Times has changed its stance on the whole story.

Really good post and perhaps this delves deeper into why City believe that there has been procedural compromise which ought to exonerate us at CAS.

When you say The Times has changed its stance on the whole story, how would you describe how it has evolved?