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

[Ric]

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.

They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!

 

[blueparrot]

They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!

Maybe not, but being able to charge £20 k / day is probably somewhat dependant on his reputation for winning cases Pick too many losing ones and his ego and earnings would take a hit.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

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/

That's what worries me, let's hope he's not a two time loser.
Although seeing how Khaldoon is so bullish about this, and the positivity around it,
it tempers the trepidation somewhat.

 

[dickie davies]

They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!

It really gets on my fucking nerves when I see people repeating Panick is on 20 grand a day
It's not a small amount of money but his fees are probably about £500+vat an hour
Then he will have a team of people to do all the legwork for him, some of these are probably on £200/£250 an hour plus vat

The 20 grand is for an entire legal team

 

[Ancient Citizen]

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

Indeed, for that kind of money, as well as being cleared, we should also be getting
UEFA dissolved.

 

[spiny]

If UEFA win the appeal then the only recourse is the courts for City but the ban would be likely to stand so job done with City financially hamstrung.

If City win it is hard to see the endgame. If on a technicality then the mud will have stuck requiring a separate initiative to clear our name. Will City dish the dirt?

If UEFA are shown to be in the wrong with their allegations then that opens another can of worms. So far City has been accommodating to preserve the integrity of competitions so as not to kill the golden goose. Now we have a confrontational and personal scenario.

I see the G14 as believing they have a win win position whatever the outcome. Either City is punished or UEFA takes the rap leaving the G14 free to set up their own organisation and competitions. The position of FIFA is key because UEFA are affiliated to them and players operating outside the official structure will not be eligible to play in Internationals.

So many potential twists and turns, mainly in the hands of City. No wonder Khaldoon talked about spending £30 on lawyers rather than accept being compromised on a case they thought was closed. It looks like UEFA’s last throw of the dice and hard to see what else they can do?

 

[FrankSwift1]

Indeed, for that kind of money, as well as being cleared, we should also be getting
UEFA dissolved.

Forget Pannick we need Massingbird.

Blackadder:
I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Massingbird not only got him off; he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List. And the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket!

Perkins:
I hear he's a dab hand at the prosecution as well, sir.

Blackadder:
Yes, well, look at Oscar Wilde.

Perkins:
Ol' butch Oscar.

Blackadder:
Yep! Big, bearded, bonking, butch Oscar. The terror of the ladies. 114 illegitimate children, world heavyweight boxing champion and author of the best-selling pamphlet "Why I Like To Do It With Girls." And Massingbird had him sent down for being a whoopsie.

 

[Shirley]

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.

What happened at QPR should be a warning to Newcastle if they don't appoint the proper football people at the club it will all end in tears.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

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/

All depends on what you mean by 'lost'. He was challenging the whole concept of FFP being unlawful which was highly unlikely to ever fly (similarly, anyone expecting FFP to be thrown out at CAS will be similarly disappointed). What he did achieve was a reduction in the fine, which was described at arbitration as 'not disproportiate', from £41M to £17M, following QPR's decision to lodge an appeal (which was subsequently withdrawn).

I prefer to look at the following:
“It was the Supreme Court case of the year, if not the decade; so naturally enough, the country’s best-known Supreme Court advocate was at the centre of it.
Having already come to intense public notice in the Article 50 case in January 2017, it was inevitable that Lord Pannick QC would be back in action for Miller 2. Miller’s original judicial review application was initially rejected in the High Court, but in a high-tension hearing viewed by 4.4 million people online, Pannick – with his strikingly relaxed and intimate delivery – persuaded the 11-strong panel that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks should be ruled unlawful.
While Pannick has reached quasi-celebrity status for public law cases, he has continued to be seriously in demand on commercial work, such as the Morrisons data protection case and the Box Clever pensions dispute.
In PrivatBank v Kolomoisky, Pannick – instructed by Hogan Lovells – successfully acted for PrivatBank when the court upheld a freeze on the assets of two Ukrainian oligarchs. The Lawyer’s 2017 Barrister of the Year makes a deserved return to the spotlight in 2020.”

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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?

Those regulations specifically exclude CFCB matters. Article 2. So CFCB rules take precedence.