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

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I am interested in what projectriver posted because it seems to have a clear connection to the club statement in response to the AC's decision and in particular the club's insistence that it had "always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process". There has been much soul searching on here as to what evidence UEFA could have. This has sometimes gone to the lengths of hand wringing and cries of, "they must 'ave some'at or why 'ave they 'ave they banned us?" We are led to believe that they have "some" copies of redacted emails with mysterious references to "HH" and that's all. This would seem to be well short of what is required to secure anything like a "conviction". But if this is not about securing a "conviction" but is actually, as we have always thought, part of an anti-City smear campaign supported strongly by those within UEFA whose loyalties really lie elsewhere and those in the IC and AC of questionable values, this process has already had the press dogs and others baying for our blood for 18 months. And City have no recourse - CAS will uphold our appeal, but there'll be no damage done, no damages. But I do hope that if such is the case Lord Pannick makes an awful mess of FFP and some UEFA officials (and some of their allies at other clubs) in a higher court.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

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

Niccolo Macchiavelli and Darth Vader

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

BluessinceHydeRoad, that's what I hope for also. Then also dig up as much dirt that we can and present it in court. That this trial be UEFA was just a way to stop us in are tracts and was instigated to throw dirt even if those that informed UEFA about us knew that they were just lying in everything they said.

 

[KS55]

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.

Can't argue with that. Nice analogy of CPS.

 

[KS55]

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.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. CAS absolutely can examine all matters of fact and law, so there is no danger of process overriding the facts. See CAS rule 57.

 

[dadnlad]

Gill, Parry and Partners.

nowhere to be seen just in case the shit hits the fan

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

If this a “de novo” trial, how on Earth is it acceptable to only afford it a 3 day time slot, and particularly if it’s being done by video link (NB: I don’t know if it is or it isn’t by the way) with all the room for confusion and IT glitches that that might entail? Surely City would need all of that time to put their side alone?

 

[KS55]

Gill, Parry and Partners.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Citizen Green]

Is there any solid knowledge out there that UEFA have access to more than the hacked documents? As much as I would love them to, I can’t see that they would fight back in CAS based upon those documents.

 

[slbsn]

If this a “de novo” trial, how on Earth is it acceptable to only afford it a 3 day time slot, and particularly if it’s being done by video link (NB: I don’t know if it is or it isn’t by the way) with all the room for confusion and IT glitches that that might entail? Surely City would need all of that time to put their side alone?

Thats life I guess. CAS "trials" (really hearings) are usually a lot shorter. And much of this will be considered based on written submissions.