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

[MillionMilesAway]

You may end being shown to be right but sport has loads of these type rules. F1 has spending limits, rugby union has a salary cap per team, even the PL has it's own financial rules which City signed up to, China has limits on it will allow be spent on foreign players, the list of restrictions compared to "normal life" would go on for miles.

If you get what you're looking for the implications are enormous for every sport on the planet.

Quite. I am surprised people still raise the fact as being a focus of the current situation.

A competition rule is to sign up for FFP which all the clubs seems quite happy to have done.
No-one's raised it in a court to challenge its legality.

 

[abu13]

A sad day that was.

Broke my heart :)

 

[Kazzydeyna]

The dream scenario for the next few months is a mix of: City are exonerated in full (maybe 60-70% chance), or at least the ban is held over allowing us to play in CL next season (100% if not exonerated before hand), The league is null and voided (50%) or awarded to liverpool with a big asterisk next to it (50%), many of the clubs who have cheated their way to prominence by running up huge debts go bump or are at least reigned in "for the good of the game" and we finally get to see and hear the reason for Citys confidence.

All of the above are possible but not certain. What IS certain is the spurs will remain what they have been for the last 50 years or more, a sometimes half decent cup side. No more, no less. Not threatened with relegation, but never threatening to win the league either.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd welcome clarification from PB on this point. My understanding is that we are dealing with a matter of some legal significance here since at issue are wages agreed in contracts signed some considerable time before the terms of FFP were known. UEFA could not, therefore, find a club in breach of the regulations for spending before there was any regulation of spending. But I am certain that City were in regular contact with UEFA to ensure that we were in a position to avoid any sanction. We received assurances from UEFA that this was the case and the club still has these assurances. Only after our accounts had been published did UEFA change the date limit on these wages. This is certainly not City being "somewhat creative after the fact" nor is it reason for UEFA to be "more than a little pissed they missed it". It shows clearly that City did everything to conform and were victim to something very similar to entrapment. This is one of many procedural reasons why I too "fail to see how UEFA can make this stick in CAS or anywhere else for that matter."

That's essentially correct. I was told we sought and received assurances from UEFA that we were on the right lines as regards our accounting for these wages on three separate occasions and that we would not be sanctioned if we met the requirements of the then current rules.

UEFA didn't change the date however. They changed the basis of how to calculate if you'd met the relevant requirement, after the first set of relevant accounts had been published. Having just met the requirement under the original rules, in force at the year end in 2012 and still in force when we published the accounts, we then didn't meet the amended requirement. This particular one only applied to 2012's accounts so there was nothing we could do to amend anything.

This was done not long before we published the next year's accounts and having been given those assurances, we then thought we knew what level of loss we needed to show for that 2013 financial year. Undoubtedly we pulled a few tricks to meet that, as I've previously explained but what really tripped us up was the sacking of Mancini late in the 2013 financial year. Under the terms of hi revised contract, we had to pay 2 years' salary to him and his coaching team. The plan was to sack him anyway but after the end of the season, when the compensation would have gone into the next set of accounts. That cost us an unforeseen £30m I believe so we had to find the additional funds to cover that to ensure we were on course to hit our target loss figure. Hence the emails about bringing some sponsorship revenues forward.

 

[abu13]

There is absolutely no point anybody going on about the rights or wrongs of FFP and why we failed it. CAS have no interest in that. They are only judging only on the the 2 year ban and the relevant charges from UEFA that led to ban i.e. overstating sponsorship and failure to assist with the investigation.

The time to fight FFP and the original charges passed years ago.

Correct, they wont get into any debate around the rights and wrong of FFP just the process.

What interests me is regard to our initial failure, we know that Uefa moved the goal posts and we received the fine etc.. on the back of it.
I would imagine that if we have the proof of this it will form part of our case. Now lets assume the £20 million we ended up paying UEFA pushed us over the FFP limit.
If they find the UEFA process was wrong would we not only be cleared but also have a claim back for the £20 million fine?

 

[kaz7]

Monkey sponge on twitter is a Liverpool supporting football agent , he thinks it's going legal , our champions League ban

why should we take the slightest interest in a dippers opinion?

 

[kaz7]

FFP doesn't limit owner investment, an owner can install gold plated toilet seats and have academies built on the moon if they want. The day to day part of the business must meet certain trading terms to qualify for entry to European competition. If you don't want to enter UEFA sanctioned competition you can spend what you. What is illegal about that?

Only yesterday Rick Parry was in front a government committe stressing the need for wage caps, he's hardly doing that if it's illegal?

Dippers know all about illegal,find out about their mythical new ground

 

[BAB.DAB]

why should we take the slightest interest in a dippers opinion?

Because he's also a football agent, and like what khaldoon said ' football is a small world, we hear things '

 

[ganganvince]

Monkey sponge on twitter is a Liverpool supporting football agent , he thinks it's going legal , our champions League ban

Would that be from the hateful 8? Or EUFA?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Dippers know all about illegal,find out about their mythical new ground

and dead Italians, destruction of other people's transport and property, hacking, having sanctioned money laundering firms as sponsors, having a grossly inflated kit deal with a B-player Boston manufacturer and signing players from another club whose ownership have close ties to their own owners at below market value.