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

[NZBlue]

So here we are 3000 pages and still know nothing.

Did we ever find out about knights, spurs and dirt to be dished as Liverpool get the title gifted?

 

[Ric]

I tend to only read this thread, rather than post - it provides the opportunity to learn from those that have a lot more knowledge and have done the research, but - as a CITY fan of so many years - I have an natural inclination to 'cityitis' - and am just expecting something to go wrong.

But through reading the thread I cannot help to get infected with hope due to the insights and views of some seemingly very knowledgeable people - but then again the cityitis reminds me that - afterall they are also CITY fans and therefore prone to over-optimism.

But, surely Lord Pannick's involvement - or rather his continued involvement - is a reason for a level of confidence?

People in his profession - especially at his level - are all about reputation and they do not casually leave themselves open to being on the 'losing side'.

He will be on a day rate along with some bonus structure I would guess - he surely would have been quickly able to assess if the CITY position was weak or if indeed there was clear evidence to support the ban being justified.

Surely if that was the case, then he would have had a quiet word with the Chairman and advised that we swallow - because otherwise we take the hit and then the embarrassment of public confirmation.

So I take some comfort in that - although that again may just be the hopeful CITY fan in me.

Pannick does seem to have an excellent reputation, although it’s worth noting that he previously lost a FFP case when representing QPR in 2018:
https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/queens-park-rangers-v-english-football-league/

 

[SilverFox2]

Assuming there are several reasons for CAS to rule in our favour, will all the evidence still be heard and eventually ruled upon or if say a technicality is immediately found would that then stop the case?

My fear is that UEFA may have deliberately inserted technical errors or know they are there to be discovered and this allows them to appear to be righteous. Our proof is ignored and they have had the benefit of time to get the media to hang draw and quarter us.
In other words can we insist they rule on the allegation as well as any technicality?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Assuming there are several reasons for CAS to rule in our favour, will all the evidence still be heard and eventually ruled upon or if say a technicality is immediately found would that then stop the case?

My fear is that UEFA may have deliberately inserted technical errors or know they are there to be discovered and this allows them to appear to be righteous. Our proof is ignored and they have had the benefit of time to get the media to hang draw and quarter us.
In other words can we insist they rule on the allegation as well as any technicality?

I doubt we can insist on anything.
The rest is anybody's guess - I assume the club's defence would cover all angles though, in case one particular argument fails.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Pannick does seem to have an excellent reputation, although it’s worth noting that he previously lost a FFP case when representing QPR in 2018:
https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/queens-park-rangers-v-english-football-league/

You can only work with the material you're given, you only have to watch Four Year Plan for an indication of the shambles QPR have been for the past decade.

 

[spacecadet]

At twenty large a day it is safe to say Lord Pannick QC will have all angles of the task covered.

 

[lancs blue]

Dates 2 and 9 maybe significant as it shows the five years between the initial punishment and the referral to AC to meet the deadline, although some think that the start of the process was the start of the five years date 1

UEFA's Disciplinary Regs page 13 contains this comment about the time limitations :

The statute of limitations set out above is interrupted by all procedural acts, starting afresh with each interruption.

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFile...CompDisCases/02/60/83/56/2608356_DOWNLOAD.pdf

This seems to imply that UEFA have until 16 May 2024 to instigate further proceedings based on the pre-2014 accounts, assuming their current proceedings are not time-barred. Have I interpreted that correctly?

In the CAS judgement document on our initial appeal City's presentation made a point to mention the alleged time-barred aspect of UEFA's proceedings but in their response UEFA made no mention of it and made no effort to refute City's claim, focusing almost exclusively on the technical point that the appeal was inadmissible because UEFA had not yet completed their own proceedings. I wonder if the time-barred angle will be revisited by City in the forthcoming hearing?

 

[bluemanchester]

Here is the City / FFP timeline, with links to documents and articles to confirm dates

1. 11 February 2014 FFP Investigations Opened CAS Appeal doc 26-02-2020 * Updated
2. 16 May 2014 City Sign Settlement Agreement UEFA
   
3. 03 /08 November 2018 Der Spiegel publish stolen emails Chapter 1 Chapter 2Chapter 3 Chapter 4
4. 03 November 2018 City Statement SKY
5. 03 january 2019 UEFA Chief Investigator Leterme, City could face a ban https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...stigator-confirms-manchester-city-could-face/
   
6. 07 March 2019 UEFA Announce Investigation into City UEFA
   
7. 07 March 2019 Club Statement re Opening of Formal Investigation CITY
   
8. 13 May 2019 NYT Tariq Panja Leaks Suggest Ban to be Recommended BBC NYT
9. 16 May 2019 UEFA Refer City to Adjudicatory Chamber Link UEFA
   
10. 16 May 2019 Club Statement re Referral to AC by IC (Leterme) CITY
11. 06 June 2019 CAS MCFC Files Appeal at CAS
    
12. 15 November 2019 CAS Decide City’s Appeal Against IC Procedure is Inadmissible CAS
13. UEFA CFCB AC Statement Decision https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/news/newsid=2638659.html Banned for 20/21 & 21/22 30m Euro fine
14. 14 Feb 2020 Club Statement re Decision of AC CITY
    https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf
    
15. 26 February 2020 CAS Confirm City’s Appeal Against AC Punishment
    https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-...s-the-appeal-of-manchester-city-v-uefa-1.html

CAS Court for Arbitration for Sport https://www.tas-cas.org/en/index.html
IC UEFA Investigative Chamber AC UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/protecting-the-game/club-financial-controlling-body/
UEFA CFCB Club Financial Control Body
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf
*Update Open Skies investigation shoes Etihad sponsorship paid by ADEC
http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

http://www.openandfairskies.com/wp-...08/Partnership-Rebuttal-Filing-DOT-Aug-24.pdfSEE PAGE 14

Dates 2 and 9 maybe significant as it shows the five years between the initial punishment and the referral to AC to meet the deadline, although some think that the start of the process was the start of the five years date 1

In the club statement ref 6 above they clarify about the evidence document presented to IC

“The accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false and the CFCB IC referral ignores a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence provided by Manchester City FC to the Chamber”

A lot of work there, well done.

 

[SilverFox2]

I doubt we can insist on anything.
The rest is anybody's guess - I assume the club's defence would cover all angles though, in case one particular argument fails.

Even if they throw out the case early on a technicality only ie don't give judgement on the allegation will that allow us to become legal on any suggestion from any source we are guilty of said allegation?

 

[117 M34]

I tend to only read this thread, rather than post - it provides the opportunity to learn from those that have a lot more knowledge and have done the research, but - as a CITY fan of so many years - I have an natural inclination to 'cityitis' - and am just expecting something to go wrong.

But through reading the thread I cannot help to get infected with hope due to the insights and views of some seemingly very knowledgeable people - but then again the cityitis reminds me that - afterall they are also CITY fans and therefore prone to over-optimism.

But, surely Lord Pannick's involvement - or rather his continued involvement - is a reason for a level of confidence?

People in his profession - especially at his level - are all about reputation and they do not casually leave themselves open to being on the 'losing side'.

He will be on a day rate along with some bonus structure I would guess - he surely would have been quickly able to assess if the CITY position was weak or if indeed there was clear evidence to support the ban being justified.

Surely if that was the case, then he would have had a quiet word with the Chairman and advised that we swallow - because otherwise we take the hit and then the embarrassment of public confirmation.

So I take some comfort in that - although that again may just be the hopeful CITY fan in me.

I imagine UEFA have an equally reputable person representing them and haven't gone for a no win no fee lawyer so i don't think we can read too much into this