Why is it obvious why our appeal failed at the AC stage? Stefan has written on the “wood for the trees” thread that they (the AC members) are generally well thought of
Whilst not strictly obvious if we ignore the IC breeches for Article 10 and lack or recursal from parry and letreme Article 9 and just glance at the AC relevant articles that seem to be contentious at least:
Article 19 – Tasks of the adjudicatory chamber 1 The adjudicatory chamber decides on cases referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, the CFCB chairman or on request in accordance with Article 16(2). 2 The proceedings are conducted by the CFCB chairman. 3 The CFCB chairman informs the defendant of the opening of the judgment stage. ---
Further breach of Article 10 with the AC leaks
Article 20 – Written observations 1 The CFCB chairman invites the defendant to submit its written observations within a suitable time limit. 2 After the submission of the written observations, no further documents may be submitted to the adjudicatory chamber by the defendant, except in exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the CFCB chairman. ---
The indication from the clubs statements was that irrefutable evidence was not permitted to be submitted.
Article 21 – Hearing 1 The CFCB chairman may, on his own initiative or at the request of the defendant, convene an oral hearing. 2 Hearings may be attended by the defendant, its legal and professional advisers and, with the permission of CFCB chairman, any other person. 3 As a general rule, the reporting investigator shall be heard first, followed by the defendant. 4 Witnesses and experts may also be heard as deemed appropriate by the CFCB chairman. 8 5 Hearings are confidential and their content may not, unless the CFCB chairman otherwise directs, be disclosed or published.
--- This sounds like a sham of a legal process that makes the US impeachment process look worthwhile.
Article 23 – Evidence 1 The adjudicatory chamber may request either the reporting investigator or the defendant to produce such evidence as the adjudicatory chamber may consider appropriate for the determination of the case. 2 The adjudicatory chamber determines the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence offered. ---
So what is acceptable or relevant is only determined by the AC/ Rodrigues with no proviso for the defendants evidence forced to be considered.
Article 34 – Appeal 1 A party directly affected has the right to appeal a final decision of the CFCB. 2 Final decisions of the CFCB may only be appealed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the UEFA Statutes. 3 In view of (i) the specific requirements of the financial fair play system, (ii) the need to apply monitoring and reporting periods in a consistent manner to all clubs, (iii) the aim to treat all clubs equally, and therefore in the interest of good administration of justice, the relevant reference date for the assessment of financial and economic data, facts and evidence submitted by the parties in proceedings before the CAS shall be no later than the date of the final decision of the CFCB investigatory or adjudicatory chamber, respectively. 12 Chapter 3 – Rules applicable to the whole proceedings -
-- The initial pinch settlement certainly illustrares a failure of (ii) especially used with the reports of the time that Liverpool's pre 2010 contracts were permitted for exclusion during their investigation
Article 35 – Enforcement 1 The UEFA administration is competent to enforce the decisions of the CFCB. 2 If a decision imposes disciplinary measures, its enforcement is barred after ten years.
---The UEFA administration is competent, had to include this one for comedy purposes
Article 36 – Rectification The CFCB may, at any time, rectify any mistakes in calculation or any other obvious errors made in its decisions.
--- Er really any time this sounds as useful as their VAR bench mark for obvious errors
Article 37 – Statute of limitations Prosecution is barred after five years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
--- but er we can include earlier stuff if we like er because we will say its Article 36 and that comes before 37, The Ac judgement cited 2012-1016 well beyond their own 5 year statue of limitation for the alleged breach(es)
So the basis of the AC procedures there's still plenty of scope to define the AC members as not being biased corrupt rubber stamping twats, but to still render the AC process a largely futile exercise as they can only assess according to the UEFA procedures and articles of association under a rigid and not necessarily truth seeking framework. You would only have to look at the percentage of appeals to CAS about UEFA FFP that are upheld or partially upheld compared to the those that are dismissed to see that the AC is designed as a rubber stamping process of the IC findings exercise over an actual independent evidence based review. otherwise the AC would intercept a percentage of the cases the IC submits before the appeal at the CAS invariably finds UEFA wholly or partially in the wrong on a persistent basis.
