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

[franksinatra]

Liverpool's hacking gave rise to three types of misdemeanors.
1. Civil Tort. We settled that by accepting a payment.
2. Criminal action under the Misuse of Computers act. Not clear why no action taken here. There is no Statutory Limitation for crimes.
3. Administrative action by PL, FA. FA declined to act as the offences were too long ago. Not a rule, just their view. PL decined to look! (Have I got FA and PL right way round?)

In relation to part 2 and part 3 would the only evidence realistically be the information City have who decided to accept a payment to not comment any further on the allegations?

 

[117 M34]

Unless we get a complete exoneration from CAS. We will always be tarred as getting away with it. This will be due to UEFA not following their own procedures. Just imagine how the press will tar us.

If UEFA concede defeat on day 1 of the hearing, pay us 50m compensation and do a statement to the press saying they made a mistake and would like to apologise, people will still say we got away with it

 

[The Colonel]

How long after an hearing do CAS normally deliver a verdict?

Normally about a month but City have asked for a quick decision and I think that all parties would prefer that.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The one thing both Uefa and the Premier League will have to factor in if our ban is upheld, is the potential for future recompense and loss of earnings.

We are certain qualifiers in terms of current league standings, that's before we win it in August ;)

City would move on to the Swiss Courts and there is little doubt that continued litigation comes with added cost to both ourselves and Uefa.

Fag packet calculations for missing out on just next season would be £70m in TV monies, before matchday income and then other commercial stuff is factored.

Add on the £25m fine, and Uefa and the Premier League must need to be extremely mindful of what City would be owed on the back end if we were ultimately found exonerated at a higher court.

Our owners can stand the loss in the interim, but Uefa and United (should they steal the place) would be on the hook for the best part of £100m.

 

[KS55]

In relation to part 2 and part 3 would the only evidence realistically be the evidence City have who decided to accept a payment to not comment any further on the allegations?

For part 3, we compiled a report at their request, so they have evidence but declined to use it.
For part 2, authorities showed zero interest as no complaint was made to police or information commissioner.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If the Premier League finishes this season then the rule doesn't apply. As far as I can see it is a one-off for this season only:

UEFA reserves the right to refuse or evaluate the admission to any club proposed by a National Association from a prematurely terminated domestic competition in particular where:

• the domestic competitions have not been prematurely terminated based on the reasons given in these UEFA guidelines or on the basis of any other legitimate public health reasons;

• the clubs were selected pursuant to a procedure which was not objective, transparent and non-discriminatory so that the selected clubs could not be considered as having been qualified on sporting merit;

• there is a public perception of unfairness in the qualification of the club.

Quite agree. It was to cover dodginess within an FA.

 

[Mikeegrini]

The one thing both Uefa and the Premier League will have to factor in if our ban is upheld, is the potential for future recompense and loss of earnings.

We are certain qualifiers in terms of current league standings, that's before we win it in August ;)

City would move on to the Swiss Courts and there is little doubt that continued litigation comes with added cost to both ourselves and Uefa.

Fag packet calculations for missing out on just next season would be £70m in TV monies, before matchday income and then other commercial stuff is factored.

Add on the £25m fine, and Uefa and the Premier League must need to be extremely mindful of what City would be owed on the back end if we were ultimately found exonerated at a higher court.

Our owners can stand the loss in the interim, but Uefa and United (should they steal the place) would be on the hook for the best part of £100m.

Would Utd be liable though, they would ( as much as I hate to say it) have acted in good faith. UEFA would be looking at the total bill?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Liverpool's hacking gave rise to three types of misdemeanors.
1. Civil Tort. We settled that by accepting a payment.
2. Criminal action under the Misuse of Computers act. Not clear why no action taken here. There is no Statutory Limitation for crimes.
3. Administrative action by PL, FA. FA declined to act as the offences were too long ago. Not a rule, just their view. PL decined to look! (Have I got FA and PL right way round?)

Wasn't the PL because it was a while ago (I may have misquoted that earlier)?
The FA said that no-one would give them any info, so City partly blocked that.

As City accepted a payoff, presumably they'd be reticent about offering any support to any criminal enquiry.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Would Utd be liable though, they would ( as much as I hate to say it) have acted in good faith. UEFA would be looking at the total bill?

I suppose it depends on how much good faith United were seen to have acted in!

 

[bluemanchester]

How long after an hearing do CAS normally deliver a verdict?

A similar question was asked the other day and I found the answer funny. It was along the lines, not as quick as UEFA who delivered the verdict before the hearing.