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

[TedofChume]

You are Lord Pannick and I claim my prize ;-)

That section 63 scope document is an Ace

lol thanks, I stumbled upon that document a week or so ago and posted it on here. I think it really helps City's case.

 

[TedofChume]

Good spot.

I''ve been trying to scroll through previous posts but there are so many I can't find it. Did you publish a link or some analysis on here of this document? If so where would I find it?

 

[laserblue]

There’s far too many lawyers in this thread for my liking.

But how many of them are drunk small claims lawyers?

 

[slbsn]

You are Lord Pannick and I claim my prize ;-)

That section 63 scope document is an Ace

Hard to say. A scoping document sounds pretty benign to me. Every engagement letter with an accountant would have the scope of work.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I feel confident if City are but worry about the pressure CAS will be under from the crooks at UEFA like Gill.

If anybody contacts any of the cas officials attempting to use influence, then they are duty bound to report it.

 

[TedofChume]

Hard to say. A scoping document sounds pretty benign to me. Every engagement letter with an accountant would have the scope of work.

To me it's much more forceful than that, section 63 reads

"The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances. "

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But how many of them are drunk small claims lawyers?

Only one as far as I’m aware.

 

[slbsn]

To me it's much more forceful than that, section 63 reads

"The Panel recognised the force of the last argument of MCFC and noted that it indeed appeared that MCFC had previously asked the Investigatory Chamber to be provided with the complete case file, which was confirmed by UEFA on 11 July 2019, but that it was later (on 29 July 2019) confirmed by UEFA for the first time that a “scope document” existed by means of which UEFA had set out the objective and scope of the compliance audit to be performed on MCFC by an accountancy firm. The Panel considered that these two documents together could be relevant for the Panel’s decision on the admissibility of the Referral Decision and/or the merits of the case, should the Panel decide that MCFC’s appeal was admissible. The Panel therefore decided to admit these documents on file based on these exceptional circumstances. "

Yes I have read it. It merely says "these two documents together could be relevant." Thats all. "Could be relevant".

 

[TedofChume]

Yes I have read it. It merely says "these two documents together could be relevant." Thats all. "Could be relevant".

That's why you practice law and I don't, thank you. I was attaching too much weight to the first sentence.

 

[slbsn]

That's why you practice law and I don't, thank you. I was attaching too much weight to the first sentence.

The first sentence was CAS saying this statement from City had validity "[City] argued that it should not be prevented from relying on these documents because UEFA chose not to disclose the existence of such evidence until after the deadlines for MCFC to file its submissions with the CAS had passed."