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

[whp.blue]

He died in 1993

Surely just a legal Technicality?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks PB, this is the CFCB document.

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Article 38 from the CFCB procedural rules
1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier. It is considered to have been observed if acted upon by 24.00 CET (Central European Time) on the deadline date. Official holidays and non-working days are included in the calculation of time limits. When a deadline
expires on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in the Swiss canton of Vaud, where UEFA's headquarters are located, it is carried forward to the next working day.
2 On receipt of a reasoned, written request, the CFCB chief investigator or CFCB
chairman may extend a time limit.
3 Time limits are interrupted from 20 December to 5 January inclusive

So the "5 years" limitation is actually around 85 days more than that based on 38.3.

No I don't think so. I think that only means that if the deadline expires on official holidays or weekends, or between 20/12 and 5/1. So if the deadline was due to expire on 24/12, it doesn't actually expire until 6/1, not that they stop counting full stop, even if the deadline expires on a working Wednesday in March.

But you've saved me looking that up.

1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier.

But what "decision" are they referring to? The sanctions document was published on 16th May iirc. But we had been talking to UEFA for some time before that. Presumably then, we'd been notified that we were in breach weeks or even months beforehand and we were arguing about the punishment rather than the FFP failure itself. Technically, you could argue we were in breach once UEFA issued its revised toolkit, or once we submitted our 2013 accounts, or once we submitted whatever documents we needed to submit for licensing purposes to the licensor and thence to UEFA. Someone, at some point prior to May 16th, nust have formally notified us to say "Hello. Is that Manchester City? This is UEFA and you're officially in breach of FFP."

I'd be arguing that's the date that starts the 5-year clock ticking.

 

[journolud]

He died in 1993

apart from that

 

[The Colonel]

I think it is to Citys advantage that the IC did not look at Citys dossier. Could this be they were running out of time to bring charges and if they started to look at the dossier and City were involved in presenting it they would have gone over the time allowed to bring charges. The AC then did not consider this dossier as it was not part of the evidence forwarded to them by the IC as the IC did not look at it so did not consider it as part of the case.

I’d forgotten this. This seems to conflict with the statement from UEFA that City didn’t cooperate.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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?

I'd guess it would come down to what written
Anyone wanting to raise it can just report the accusation.

 

[SilverFox2]

I’d forgotten this. This seems to conflict with the statement from UEFA that City didn’t cooperate.

Whilst they did not look at it at the higher chamber amI wrong in assuming they were aware of it so could easily have asked for it to be taken into consideration?

 

[blueyorkie]

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

Better call Saul!

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

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/

He didn't actually lose it I believe. I was incensed by the treatment the FL to QPR and followed the matter quite closely and was very disappointed by the outcome. My memory of the detail is very foggy now but the article you cite does show that the matter never actually went before a court but that an "arbitral panel" ruled in favour of FFP and QPR settled on terms much more favourable than the original sanction. Unfortunately no information is given on who laid down the judgement and what the basis of the judgement was.

Do we know when Lord Pannick was briefed by City? He does enjoy an excellent reputation and no self-respecting QC would encourage a client to pursue a case which the QC considered likely to go against them. I very much doubt he's remotely interested in ruining UEFA because he will be focused on having City's appeal upheld. I think we'd all agree that he's by far the best candidate to present and argue City's case and what I post now is in no way trying to anticipate what that case will be, but reading this thread this morning has just triggered off more speculation.

Suppose City present our evidence and the court accepts it proves our innocence or, at least, makes UEFA's decision unsound, the sanction is overturned and we win. Suppose CAS is not satisfied by our evidence but does accept evidence that the two chambers were subjected undue pressure from members of the UEFA executive, we still have our appeal upheld and UEFA is damaged. Suppose we also have compelling evidence that members of the IC were involved in corrupt deals with other elements which raised, at the least, the most serious doubts about their impartiality, honesty and fitness for their role - we win and UEFA is damaged very seriously indeed. City's case may be even more far ranging though. When Fenerbahce claimed the FFP was a violation of competition law CAS ruled that they had not made a case to sustain this. CAS did not support or uphold FFP as UEFA try to claim. City may well argue such a case and may argue it very well, and may even be able to paint it as a clear attempt to appease certain clubs and prevent a break away by making it much more difficult for other clubs to compete by restricting investment. In such a case any sanction imposed for breaching the tregulations would be null and void. Even if if City's appeal was to be lost on other grounds CAS may feel that the sanctions must be suspended until the ECJ rule on the matter of the enforceability of sanctions in pursuit of FFP. If City can prove FFP is the work of a cartel UEFA is really damaged below the water line.

I am hopeful that City's evidence will show our innocence but I suspect we will present a case which advances on many fronts and many of them may damage UEFA. While not adding up to a smoking gun some come pretty damned close. I do accept it is speculation but I do not believe it is wild speculation.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

No I don't think so. I think that only means that if the deadline expires on official holidays or weekends, or between 20/12 and 5/1. So if the deadline was due to expire on 24/12, it doesn't actually expire until 6/1, not that they stop counting full stop, even if the deadline expires on a working Wednesday in March.

But you've saved me looking that up.

1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier.

But what "decision" are they referring to? The sanctions document was published on 16th May iirc. But we had been talking to UEFA for some time before that. Presumably then, we'd been notified that we were in breach weeks or even months beforehand and we were arguing about the punishment rather than the FFP failure itself. Technically, you could argue we were in breach once UEFA issued its revised toolkit, or once we submitted our 2013 accounts, or once we submitted whatever documents we needed to submit for licensing purposes to the licensor and thence to UEFA. Someone, at some point prior to May 16th, nust have formally notified us to say "Hello. Is that Manchester City? This is UEFA and you're officially in breach of FFP."

I'd be arguing that's the date that starts the 5-year clock ticking.

That's what I thought over the Christmas interruption - it just removes issues caused by the holiday period

 

[blueyorkie]

No I don't think so. I think that only means that if the deadline expires on official holidays or weekends, or between 20/12 and 5/1. So if the deadline was due to expire on 24/12, it doesn't actually expire until 6/1, not that they stop counting full stop, even if the deadline expires on a working Wednesday in March.

But you've saved me looking that up.

1 A time limit begins on the date from which the decision is notified or published, whichever is the earlier.

But what "decision" are they referring to? The sanctions document was published on 16th May iirc. But we had been talking to UEFA for some time before that. Presumably then, we'd been notified that we were in breach weeks or even months beforehand and we were arguing about the punishment rather than the FFP failure itself. Technically, you could argue we were in breach once UEFA issued its revised toolkit, or once we submitted our 2013 accounts, or once we submitted whatever documents we needed to submit for licensing purposes to the licensor and thence to UEFA. Someone, at some point prior to May 16th, nust have formally notified us to say "Hello. Is that Manchester City? This is UEFA and you're officially in breach of FFP."

I'd be arguing that's the date that starts the 5-year clock ticking.

Assume then Colin you’ve heard Stefan’s case that the clock started ticking from the date of the alleged breach. How does that leave UEFA? Or do you think there’s a different interpretation?