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

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

?

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  1. Two-year ban upheld

    161 vote(s)
    12.0%
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    411 vote(s)
    30.6%
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    706 vote(s)
    52.5%
  4. Other

    67 vote(s)
    5.0%
  1. HalfwayUpTheKippax

    HalfwayUpTheKippax

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2009
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    In the vicinity
    I'm not PB! But in the document CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA, the CAS decision on our first appeal last year, it states that we denied breaching fair play rules

    "On 16 May 2014, following an investigation opened on 11 February 2014 into perceived breaches by MCFC of the UEFA CL&FFPR, UEFA and MCFC entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), which, inter alia, specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR."
     
  2. BluessinceHydeRoad

    BluessinceHydeRoad

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2012
    Messages:
    2,507
    A number of interesting points arising over the last 24 hours.

    Sam Lee's tweet informing us that the PL can sanction a club which makes misleading statements to get a UEFA licence puzzles me and I need someone to tell me which statement City have made which is misleading because I do not know of one. I know that City's accounts, duly audited and accepted by UEFA, give a figure for sponsorship deals which UEFA now claim to be "inflated" though what the evidential basis for this claim is we don't really know. We presume it is reports in Der Spiegel or emails stolen by a common criminal masquerading under the name of John who is facing 90 odd charges under his real name. But of misleading statements by the club I can find no trace. I find it hard to believe that City can be innocent and guilty at the same time!

    But then there is the mood of triumphalism among some on here which contrasts again with the abject defeatism of others. To be clear, on June 10 there will be no line of black Marias outside CAS waiting to take away, chained hand and foot, every official who works for, or has ever worked for, UEFA and then come back for every journalist the length and breadth of Europe and all the officials of every "cartel" club. Our hearing will not be about corruption or dishonesty or even the enforceability of FFP. Our hearing is simply an appeal to a court of arbitration, and my only concern is that we do not want arbitration, we want exoneration. I am confident, very confident indeed, and my confidence rests not on my belief that FFP is contrary to law (which I believe it to be) but on our CEO's assertions that the accusations are completely false and our chairman's assertions that we have evidence that proves conclusively that we have not breached the regulations at all. Evidence to prove us guilty does not exist. Only a process which was a travesty of justice could have found the club guilty. I have not seen the evidence, but I trust my club's CEO and chairman. I do not trust UEFA and I certainly have no faith in its IC and AC.

    FFP itself, corruption and dishonesty may well be issues raised if City choose to go beyond CAS and Tolmie seems to suggest they will. I hope they do and I suspect it is a certainty if CAS do not exonerate us completely. This makes Ceferin's recent comments on FFP very intriguing: "...we are thinking of improving [FFP]; modernising it and doing something more about the competitive balance. We are also considering some sort of luxury tax if it is possible." It is interesting that he thinks FFP is in need of improvement but that he is prepared to see a club face such swingeing punishment under regulations he considers so imperfect. Then he proceeds to express perfectly the muddle at the heart of the regulations and shows that there is no clear thinking about what the regulations are meant to do. What does he mean by 'modernising'? The regulations are only 11 years old at most and they have been reformed once and are about to be suspended. And they wish to punish City for the second time! And for regulations which have done absolutely nothing for 'the competitive balance' apart from making it harder to compete with a group of clubs, none of which are City. He doesn't even mention protecting the financial stability of clubs, which was supposed to be the grand, original aim of FFP. And what does HE mean by a luxury tax? And what are the obstacles to it - or rather who does he think might oppose it? There is at the very least a prima facie case that FFP violates competition law and UEFA woud have to show that there is an overriding and overwhelming 'sporting exception' which justifies such draconian measures. And the starting point would have to be proving that City had done anything at all to damage the LEGITIMATE interests of any club or the game as a whole. This does NOT mean City are a threat to clubs or the game because they have a richer owner, spend more and buy a better team.
     
  3. prestonibbo_mcfc

    prestonibbo_mcfc

    Joined:
    16 Apr 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Location:
    Preston
    And accommodating ;-)
     

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. bobbyowenquiff

    bobbyowenquiff

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2007
    Messages:
    3,646
    Location:
    Lancashire
    You may be right but I thought that was the time Khaldoon said we were "willing to take the pinch" and paid the fine.
     
  5. Paladin

    Paladin

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    Messages:
    3,862
    Location:
    Cheshire
    The first paragraph says "denied". The second paragraph says "did not admit". These are not the same thing.
     
  6. MillionMilesAway

    MillionMilesAway

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2015
    Messages:
    11,045
    Location:
    London
    Makes sense, yes.
    I agree that I haven't seen anything in the published media that confirms anything - the closest there is is that things about "HH to provide" and how.

    My understanding was that it wasn't the overall figures that were debated, just how much came from the owner, something there's a slightly rule on. As you say, PB is better placed.
     
  7. bobbyowenquiff

    bobbyowenquiff

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2007
    Messages:
    3,646
    Location:
    Lancashire
    What confuses things is the constant repetition in the media of the phrase "inflated sponsorship deals." It implies that the money we received was higher than that declared in the accounts and that somehow we have got an unfair advantage by working "off books". The allegations are nothing to do with the figures but relate to the source of our sponsorship ie did it come direct from our owner or from Etihad?
    We don't even know what the Etihad revenue was used for. If it was infrastructure development it would be exempt from FFP anyway. What a bloody farce this whole saga has been.
     
  8. Kazzydeyna

    Kazzydeyna

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2009
    Messages:
    1,981
    Far from an expert on this, but to my limited understanding if uefa claim HRH put in an extra 50m via Etihad airways and both citys accounts (audited remember) and Etihad accounts (also audited) say that all of the etihad sponsorship money came from Etihad accounts into citys then they can think what they like. From a legal pov there is no wrong doing. Game over, cheque please.
     
  9. domalino

    domalino

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2011
    Messages:
    21,086
    I always love how they think we're going to pay off the independent judiciary, but didn't bother with UEFA, an organisation that's got a long history of accepting bribes.

    If a bribe was going to work, it would have happened when we were getting investigated, not when we'd already been pronounced guilty, banned, and had 9 months of attack pieces in the press across Europe.
     
  10. Ric

    Ric

    Joined:
    22 May 2004
    Messages:
    39,357
    I'm no expert either, but I suspect if it really was as straightforward as that we wouldn't be where we are now.
     

Share This Page