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

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

I believe Aleksandr Ceferin is the godfather of one of Agnelli's children.

 

[BluechesterCity]

Like all blues (and the media), I've been following this thread from the start and amidst all the speculation and "expert" opinion, which has almost universally been proved wrong, there's a fair degree of despondency brought on by a sense of impotence. I think that is because we need to focus. I hear talk about whether we are "guilty" or "innocent". That's a complete diversion from the main point that FFP, in all it's guises, is fundamentally wrong and marks the death of football. The establishment media are creating an illusion which even some City fans are falling for. This isn't an attack on City, it's a war on football, it's just that only the most courageous of those in te public eye and whose livelihood depends on it is ever going to say so. The media as a whole are collaborators in the biggest ever fraud on football.

So what can we do about it apart from wringing our hands and crying "woe is us" ?

Well, for whatever reason, we find ourselves in the resistance frontline. The first point is focus. No amount of speculation or "expert opinion" is going to help the club. Let the real experts get on with it and what will be will be. Arguing with a complicit media whose main "commentators" are purposely placed mouthpieces, lickspittles and stooges is pointless.

Our biggest weapon, and available to each and every one of us, is word of mouth. And I don't mean railing about injustice or wallowing in victimhood, no-one is listening and it comes across as pathetic. Everyone knows a non-united, liverpool, chelsea or Arsenal fan. Simply point out that if they support Wolves, Everton, Southampton... whoever, they are being conned. Not just short-term, forever. They will never, ever, compete with that cartel of clubs. In the 5000/1 chance that they do win the league, their best players, like Kante, for example, will be stripped from them and that will be that. If they enjoy being conned, fine, move on. But if you convince one person and they convince a couple of their friends, a groundswell will start and the product will, rightly, suffer.

The overall point is that this isn't about Manchester City, this is a fight for the future of football.

Top post, mate.

 

[Cobwebcat]

What happens if the decision fron CAS goes against us but the verdict comes half way through next season’s CL which I presume we are in until the ruling?

 

[christopp]

The story of us being stripped of our titles concerns me more. Not arsed about champions league but losing the titles we won would be a hard pill to swallow... and one the rags and scousers would never fail to remind us about

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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".

I share your concerns for the same reasons

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

Excellent post. I think we will be bringing up the issue of UEFA's haste to pass this case to the AC one day in advance of the deadline and the impact that had on our ability to mount an effective defence. If the stories about Ceferin offering a deal are also true (and my sources are good on that) it also brings the the AC's supposed independence into question.

 

[John Wayne]

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 !

Disclosure is everything in disciplinary matters. It was imperative that UEFA exhibited all charges and relevant evidence to City's lawyers. Failure to do so would fatally compromise the action against us. They cannot produce further evidence against us at CAS as this did not form part of the initial investigation. Any subsequent evidence would mean new and further charges would have to be brought by UEFA.

City, on the other hand, have not cooperated with UEFA because of the perceived lack of impartiality. The club has submitted a 200-page defence document but this was overlooked due to the eagerness of UEFA to meet the statute of limitations. City can and will produce a watertight argument but UEFA cannot produce new material that wasn't adjudicated on in the first instance.

 

[Cobwebcat]

The story of us being stripped of our titles concerns me more. Not arsed about champions league but losing the titles we won would be a hard pill to swallow... and one the rags and scousers would never fail to remind us about

Extremely unlikely in footy. But so what others say. If you Know we won them fairly that’s the important thing. You don’t have to persuade anyone.

 

[WRicko]

PSG sponsors were paying more than City PSG with QTA contract, without a doubt.

What i think happened with your sponsors is they took the emails related to this :

The sponsorship was said to generate 67.5 million pounds (about $85 million) annually for City. But City’s holding company — the state-backed Abu Dhabi United Group — channeled 59.9 million pounds back to Etihad, according to Jorge Chumillas, the club’s chief financial officer, in an internal email to club director Simon Pearce.


The leaks showed how City allegedly tried to artificially raise its revenue, in one case by 30 million euros, according to emails from 2013 reported by Der Spiegel. Abu Dhabi United Group was alleged to be sending cash to a shell vehicle which was created to supposedly buy the right to use players’ images in marketing campaigns.


There were further examples that Sheikh Mansour could have been the source of sponsorship revenue for Abu Dhabi state-owned companies like investment firm Aabar. Der Spiegel cited a 2010 email to Aabar from Pearce, the City director who also works for Abu Dhabi’s Executive Affairs Authority.


“As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3 million,” Pearce wrote. “The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness.”

and they decided that your sponsors were related parties and only took into account the part being said from the companies (3 M from Aabar, 8 M from Etihad). I can only see this explanation. But it is ridiculous because no club of City stature would take 8 M only for shirt and stadium rights.

Here, the problem is not even the value of City sponsorship but the content of the emails that UEFA are using as proof to further decrease it. PSG could defend itself by using the valuation given by Nielsen. City didn't even get the chance to defend itself since they are accused to lying.

Its not uncommon against the rule or illegal to transfer assets / Image rights between companies within the same group. Football clubs have been very backwards on things like this till recently. I think this looks bad seeing as we do not really know what was done with them and it was done once before I think with a different company but I do the emails actual prove over value or just that it happened ? Have UEFA worked out what fair value is ? I do not think they have whilst investigating the emails otherwise we would know.

For any of this to make sense the sponsors in question need to be related parties otherwise you cannot have the influence to make them do these thing which are not in there interest. These emails do not change the ownership of any of the entities in question.

Second with regard to Etihad what would make sense would be for the government to give Etihad the money it need to honour its commitments.To city or anyone else when it was in trouble The Abu Dhabi United Group are not connected to Etihad. Why would they pay them back ? and how would that help with FFP ? or get round FFP ?

My understanding of the emails was that UEFA where arguing Etihad paid a low amount and Abu Dhabi United topped it up. The argument on here is that that not what happened what happened is Etihad got help from the government and paid the full amount or split between the two and these emails where just reminding people at City that they had to account for it so it was best that it went to the Etihad account at city and did not go to our owner.Thats fine since Etihad and the Government are not related parties to City.Your suggesting Abu Dhabi United paid it back for some reason do not see how that affects FFP

 

[Marvin]

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".

Will the CAS examine any of the evidence? surely they must do that to see if the verdict is sound and proportional.

I didn't find their FAQ particularly useful. If their only remit is to check procedure has been followed then why not just say it. https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html#c202