Wont make any difference. Those sort of discussions are often not face to face and often not counsel to counsel.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
BuryBlue1977
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,128
Think it’s important to remember that Pannick was just part of a huge legal team representing City. He’s the most high profile member but we have an army of lawyers on this case, of which he is just one of them.
Lord Pannick is one of Britain’s leading barristers who acted for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller in a successful move to overturn Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament last year. He will be supported by leading lawyers from London-based law firm Clifford Chance while fellow “Magic Circle” firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer will instruct Mr Harris. Switzerland’s Kellerhals Carrard is also involved
Lord Pannick is one of Britain’s leading barristers who acted for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller in a successful move to overturn Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament last year. He will be supported by leading lawyers from London-based law firm Clifford Chance while fellow “Magic Circle” firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer will instruct Mr Harris. Switzerland’s Kellerhals Carrard is also involved
bluemanchester
Well-Known Member
I presume you consider none of those are lightweight so I will go with your reasoning. Come on City.Think it’s important to remember that Pannick was just part of a huge legal team representing City. He’s the most high profile member but we have an army of lawyers on this case, of which he is just one of them.
Lord Pannick is one of Britain’s leading barristers who acted for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller in a successful move to overturn Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament last year. He will be supported by leading lawyers from London-based law firm Clifford Chance while fellow “Magic Circle” firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer will instruct Mr Harris. Switzerland’s Kellerhals Carrard is also involved
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
General point. Neither side really wants to go to CAS (whatever City say). If City's advice was anything but confident and strong, they would have found a way to settle this matter (today if need be). That is not to say the advice is "you will win" but it must be advice that they should have the best of the arguments. I'm pretty sure UEFA would happily take a one year ban - if we really thought we were likely to lose, I think we would take it.
Presumably any settlement today would still need to go through the CAS process now, even if just to formally offer it..
The punishment has been levied, and undoing it to change it would be difficult, wouldn't it?
Your point about confident or settle makes sense to me. Is it likely that both sides can be truly confident?
Presumably any settlement today would still need to go through the CAS process now, even if just to formally offer it..
The punishment has been levied, and undoing it to change it would be difficult, wouldn't it?
Your point about confident or settle makes sense to me. Is it likely that both sides can be truly confident?
No CAS could be abandoned at any time. Yes both sides can be confident.
BuryBlue1977
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 3,128
They’re all heavyweights and that includes Uefa’s team as well. They’ve got some high profile legal eagles working for them. The notion that this will be a piece of piss is quite frankly wishful thinking. I do believe that we have a good case but like everyone else without seeing the evidence from both sides we are all just guessing. No outcome would surprise me, just hoping for the bestI presume you consider none of those are lightweight so I will go with your reasoning. Come on City.
bluemanchester
Well-Known Member
"just hoping for the best"They’re all heavyweights and that includes Uefa’s team as well. They’ve got some high profile legal eagles working for them. The notion that this will be a piece of piss is quite frankly wishful thinking. I do believe that we have a good case but like everyone else without seeing the evidence from both sides we are all just guessing. No outcome would surprise me, just hoping for the best
Each and everyone of us.
City_Sean
Well-Known Member
Mike Mcgrath is normally pretty good on City stuff:
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
I have just read the FT column and it is a bit all over the place. However, one of the comment pieces (by someone going by the name ROXYJ), stood out for me. I have appended the comment(s) below and the full FT piece is here available on this link: https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e
"This is a silly article. First of all it shows UEFA are still leaking, despite the rules of CAS. "A person with knowledge of the governing body's investigations...". How is David by the way? Not seen him for a couple of years.
Second, this is not about the future of FFP at all. FFP is about the poorest way of overseeing financial sustainability imaginable but the rules are still there and still being applied. This is about something that happened 7 years ago, that City have already been punished for. The first major legal questions that CAS will have to decide is whther UEFA, under its own 5-year Statute of Limitations or the terms 2014 Settlement Agrement concluded as part of that original breach, even had the right to re-open the case at all. I know a very experience commercial lawyer who believes they are likely to lose on one or both of these grounds alone. You've never even mentioned this in the article.
Third, there is clear evidence in the public domain, deposited as part of the Open Skies case brought in the USA against the three Gulf airlines (including Etihad) that the airline was liberally funded by the Abu Dhabi Government. You've probably covered that case in this very paper. There's even a leaked presentation, which was prepared for the Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed by consultants Booz Allen, which states specifically that the Executive Council was funding the Etihad sponsorship of Manchester City. That was back in 2010-2011. As long as the money isn't coming from the owner himself, Sheikh Mansour via ADUG, then there is simply no breach of FFP rules. Where Etihad got the money from is only a problem if it came from the owner as disuguised equity investment. Even then, if Eithad is deemed to be a related party (as UEFA appeared to be trying to claim) then it's OK as long as the sponsorship is considered to be "fair value", which is what a non-related party might pay for it.
Another point I'm sure City will make is about the behaviour of the Chief Investigator, Yves Leterme, in a similar case involving PSG. They reported significant sponsorship revenue (>€100m per annum from Qatari sources who were definitely related parties. Leterme had a third-party brand valuation consultancy, Octagon, look at this and they reckoned it was worth just a few million Euros, so less than 10% of what PSG were claiming. That valuation meant that PSG would have failed FFP for a second time and faced a severe sanctions regime. Yet Leterme allowed PSG to appoint their own consultants (Nielsen) who valued it at €100m., which was over 10 times what Octagon had valued it. That meant PSG just passed the FFP test and Leterme waved that through to the higher Adjudicatory Chamber without quiblle and without consulting any of his CFCB colleages. They were outraged and demanded the case was re-opened. Yet because it was referred back to the Investigatory Chamber after a 10-day limit, it couldn't be and this decision was upheld at CAS when PSG appealed. So CAS take time limits very seriously and I'm sure they will in this case."
As for the emails:
"They show what Der Spiegel wanted to show. So, for example, there's an email to Simon Pearce from a finance person at City or CFG that asks if ADUG (Sheikh Mansour's company) is the source of the funds. Yet Der Spiegel didn't show Pearce's reply. If that had confirmed ADUG as the surce of funds then that's probably a smoking gun, yet Der Spiegel didn't print it. Maybe that reply said "ADUG don't get involved in this as they're a related party" or something similar.
I've spoke to two respected media commentators on football finance matters, one of whom has no love for the City ownership I can assure you. Both shrugged their shoulders and said there was no smoking gun in those Der Spiegel articles. A bit embarrassing maybe but both agreed there was nothing there to hang them on."
"This is a silly article. First of all it shows UEFA are still leaking, despite the rules of CAS. "A person with knowledge of the governing body's investigations...". How is David by the way? Not seen him for a couple of years.
Second, this is not about the future of FFP at all. FFP is about the poorest way of overseeing financial sustainability imaginable but the rules are still there and still being applied. This is about something that happened 7 years ago, that City have already been punished for. The first major legal questions that CAS will have to decide is whther UEFA, under its own 5-year Statute of Limitations or the terms 2014 Settlement Agrement concluded as part of that original breach, even had the right to re-open the case at all. I know a very experience commercial lawyer who believes they are likely to lose on one or both of these grounds alone. You've never even mentioned this in the article.
Third, there is clear evidence in the public domain, deposited as part of the Open Skies case brought in the USA against the three Gulf airlines (including Etihad) that the airline was liberally funded by the Abu Dhabi Government. You've probably covered that case in this very paper. There's even a leaked presentation, which was prepared for the Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed by consultants Booz Allen, which states specifically that the Executive Council was funding the Etihad sponsorship of Manchester City. That was back in 2010-2011. As long as the money isn't coming from the owner himself, Sheikh Mansour via ADUG, then there is simply no breach of FFP rules. Where Etihad got the money from is only a problem if it came from the owner as disuguised equity investment. Even then, if Eithad is deemed to be a related party (as UEFA appeared to be trying to claim) then it's OK as long as the sponsorship is considered to be "fair value", which is what a non-related party might pay for it.
Another point I'm sure City will make is about the behaviour of the Chief Investigator, Yves Leterme, in a similar case involving PSG. They reported significant sponsorship revenue (>€100m per annum from Qatari sources who were definitely related parties. Leterme had a third-party brand valuation consultancy, Octagon, look at this and they reckoned it was worth just a few million Euros, so less than 10% of what PSG were claiming. That valuation meant that PSG would have failed FFP for a second time and faced a severe sanctions regime. Yet Leterme allowed PSG to appoint their own consultants (Nielsen) who valued it at €100m., which was over 10 times what Octagon had valued it. That meant PSG just passed the FFP test and Leterme waved that through to the higher Adjudicatory Chamber without quiblle and without consulting any of his CFCB colleages. They were outraged and demanded the case was re-opened. Yet because it was referred back to the Investigatory Chamber after a 10-day limit, it couldn't be and this decision was upheld at CAS when PSG appealed. So CAS take time limits very seriously and I'm sure they will in this case."
As for the emails:
"They show what Der Spiegel wanted to show. So, for example, there's an email to Simon Pearce from a finance person at City or CFG that asks if ADUG (Sheikh Mansour's company) is the source of the funds. Yet Der Spiegel didn't show Pearce's reply. If that had confirmed ADUG as the surce of funds then that's probably a smoking gun, yet Der Spiegel didn't print it. Maybe that reply said "ADUG don't get involved in this as they're a related party" or something similar.
I've spoke to two respected media commentators on football finance matters, one of whom has no love for the City ownership I can assure you. Both shrugged their shoulders and said there was no smoking gun in those Der Spiegel articles. A bit embarrassing maybe but both agreed there was nothing there to hang them on."
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Mike Mcgrath is normally pretty good on City stuff:
Is that anything more than a reprint of the club position?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.