BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
I think we're in danger of letting David Conn monopolise our thoughts and we're also running the risk of attacking FFP in its entirety. City may well be prepared to do that in the courts before this business is finished but at the moment the priority is winning the appeal and I'd like comments on whether I have a clear view of the situation as it is.
1. CAS is not the place to question the legality of FFP
2. CAS will concern itself with process almost exclusively and the only question to be dealt with is whether City received a fair hearing before IC and AC. CAS will also need to be convinced that City have been treated in a manner which is consistent with clubs in other comparable cases.
3. City will argue that UEFA are trying to reopen mattres dealt with already in 2014 and it is not admissible to punish the club twice for the same deeds (City did not accept they had done anything wrong in 2014).
4 There were irregularities in the way the club was dealt with in 2014, notably the changing of dates on which player wages were included in the calculation of allowable deductions after the submission of our accounts.
5. The accusations made are founded on documents stolen from the club and quoted out of context and thus should not be considered. The clubs accounts are an accurate statement and have been accepted by UEFA.
6 The severity of the punishment handed down was justified in part by the alleged refusal of the club to cooperate with the inquiry and yet the club initially welcomed it. In fact the club submitted 200 documents as evidence, but the court did not give the club an opportunity to present the evidence and did not even read it.
7 The IC systematically breached its obligations to confidentiality and to act in good faith which undermined the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
8 The case involving City has not been dealt with in a manner consistent with the treatment of other clubs in similar cases. The case of PSG in particular is entirely different and illustrates the whimsical nature of UEFA's processes.
If I am wrong in any of this or there are any grounds for our appeal please post in with them.
1. CAS is not the place to question the legality of FFP
2. CAS will concern itself with process almost exclusively and the only question to be dealt with is whether City received a fair hearing before IC and AC. CAS will also need to be convinced that City have been treated in a manner which is consistent with clubs in other comparable cases.
3. City will argue that UEFA are trying to reopen mattres dealt with already in 2014 and it is not admissible to punish the club twice for the same deeds (City did not accept they had done anything wrong in 2014).
4 There were irregularities in the way the club was dealt with in 2014, notably the changing of dates on which player wages were included in the calculation of allowable deductions after the submission of our accounts.
5. The accusations made are founded on documents stolen from the club and quoted out of context and thus should not be considered. The clubs accounts are an accurate statement and have been accepted by UEFA.
6 The severity of the punishment handed down was justified in part by the alleged refusal of the club to cooperate with the inquiry and yet the club initially welcomed it. In fact the club submitted 200 documents as evidence, but the court did not give the club an opportunity to present the evidence and did not even read it.
7 The IC systematically breached its obligations to confidentiality and to act in good faith which undermined the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
8 The case involving City has not been dealt with in a manner consistent with the treatment of other clubs in similar cases. The case of PSG in particular is entirely different and illustrates the whimsical nature of UEFA's processes.
If I am wrong in any of this or there are any grounds for our appeal please post in with them.