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

[Blue Feather]

Phil Jones hopefully

You beat me to it !!!

 

[WRicko]

Eh??
If Uefa rule that we did not infringe FFP, that is the end of it, irrespective of procedural issues.
A separate line of defence may be that Uefa did not follow the correct procedure. If we won that argument, but were found to have infringed FFP, then CAS may give a whole range if judgements from
1) the failure of procedure was so great that the punishment is set aside to
2) the failure of procedure did not substantially infringe our rights, so the punishment stands.
3) plus everything in between, eg a lesser punishment, because our rights were infringed to a certain extent.
Edit PS. There is also the nightmare scenario in which CAS order Uefa to rehear the case, this time obseving correct procedure.

What I mean is if CAS can only deal with procedure lets say UEFA have looked at all the evidence and done so in the correct timescale and think we are guilty then even if CAS think we are innocent then they cannot clear us because procedure was followed that clearly make no sense.

Its not entirely clear what evidence is against us and what evidence we have or even what we are supposed to have done wrong. However it seems that we are alleged to have received money from a related party and that money might be of an inflated amount. Thats not what our accounts have shown or what UEFA have ever said before tho they did want to. So our view the view of the auditors is different to that of UEFA so its subjective or at least vague or open to interpritation. If CAS can only look at process then they could think we are on to a winner in relation to our evidence about related party and values etc but judge that UEFA have followed due process and therefore find us guilty because they can only look at process not facts values of sponsorship related party etc. Even if they can look at more than process do they have the capabilities to look at sponsorship values and related party ? I seems very complex specialist time consuming no really sport or even sports governance related.

 

[nmc]

The AC has the power to call for more evidence over and above that provided by the IC.

It absolutely does but that should not be a substitute for the IC handing the AC a complete and comprehensive investigation. There’s a reason why UEFA separate roles between an IC and an AC and each chamber should complete its own function. What probably happened in our case was that the IC did next to nothing and the AC performed the function of both the IC and the AC. It’s a bit like the police not having time to conduct a proper investigation and making an incomplete application to the CPS but the CPS saying don’t worry we’ll pull the evidence together during the court proceedings.

 

[slbsn]

What I mean is if CAS can only deal with procedure lets say UEFA have looked at all the evidence and done so in the correct timescale and think we are guilty then even if CAS think we are innocent then they cannot clear us because procedure was followed that clearly make no sense.

Its not entirely clear what evidence is against us and what evidence we have or even what we are supposed to have done wrong. However it seems that we are alleged to have received money from a related party and that money might be of an inflated amount. Thats not what our accounts have shown or what UEFA have ever said before tho they did want to. So our view the view of the auditors is different to that of UEFA so its subjective or at least vague or open to interpritation. If CAS can only look at process then they could think we are on to a winner in relation to our evidence about related party and values etc but judge that UEFA have followed due process and therefore find us guilty because they can only look at process not facts values of sponsorship related party etc. Even if they can look at more than process do they have the capabilities to look at sponsorship values and related party ? I seems very complex specialist time consuming no really sport or even sports governance related.

All of this discussion of procedure is wrong. Ignore the procedure at earlier stages - this is like a new trial of the "law" and the facts

 

[Rochdale Blue]

If City are Kompany and Aguero who in your opinion are UEFA represented by?

Jethro Bodine and Jed Clampet.

 

[Dirty Harry]

First time poster. Season ticket holder and long time reader.

We are in very very very good hands for this appeal. Obviously the stakes are high, but we have the best possible representation and that puts us in a great position. We effectively have the legal equivalent of a Vincent Kompany and Sergio Aguero combination to take on UEFA, and I hope we take it to them with gusto!

I have published an article expanding on this in more detail if anyone is interested -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manchester-city-fc-vs-uefa-most-important-case-millennium-joshua-levy

Thanks for that mate but I have an issue with one of the comments :-

" while seemingly rewarding owners such as those of our friends in Salford for saddling their club with debt " ;-)

 

[Kazzydeyna]

If City are Kompany and Aguero who in your opinion are UEFA represented by?

Hopefully Phil Jones and that annoying little pea twat.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

I am hoping that CAS, will tell UEFA if you have based all your evidence of City's guilt on these stolen/hacked e-mails. That CAS will kick it out on the first day. Then tell UEFA that they cannot do anything to us based on these e-mails, and that all evidence from seasons 2011/12 to 2019/20 will not be able to be used ever again.

Thus giving us a clean slate. Then it will be time to go after the bad guys, and get as much money out of them as we can.

 

[slbsn]

If you break down the written submissions City made at CAS 1 (https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf p14) you can see the likely main strands of argument at CAS 2:

a) ...the Investigation conducted by [UEFA] was not conducted in accordance with procedural fairness and due process and was contrary to legitimate expectations; IRRELEVANT NOW AS CAS IS A DE NOVO TRIAL
(b) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being periods covered by the 2014 Settlement Agreement; A KEY ISSUE
(c) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of any time prior to 16 May 2014 being five years prior to the date of the Referral Decision; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(d) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches of the [UEFA CL&FFPR] in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being outside of the current monitoring period; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(e) a declaration that the Swiss law personality rights of the Appellant have been violated by the Leaks and that Respondent is responsible for such violation; LARGELY IRRELEVANT

Win on b,c and/or d and the case appears to collapse. Lose on those and the case will be judged on the factual merits. I do believe UEFA will need to do more than wave the Pearce "we can do what we want" email extract around.

 

[nmc]

If City are Kompany and Aguero who in your opinion are UEFA represented by?

Gill, Parry and Partners.