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

[slbsn]

Does anyone expect that Manchester City would ever have allowed Etihad to put their name all over our stadium and shirt for £8m pa?

The emails suggest funding came through ADUG but Etihad had a commercial undertaking to sponsor City to the tune of at least £40m pa according to contemporaneous media reports. Evidence of disguised owner investment appears to City fans to be superficial.

Yes - a ridiculous concept especially as it was deemed fair value at the full amount and the full amount is the audited value.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas

MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

Interesting article but I have a couple of issues with the paragraph mentioned. In the article he refers to the statute of limitations being 5 years from the date of infringement.

The settlement was almost 5 years before the date of the new proceedings however the date of the breach of FFP would appear to be more than 5 years prior to the date of the new proceedings, d some of the more salacious allegations date from spring 2013 and December 2013.

Perhaps UEFA have argued that this doesn’t apply in cases of misrepresentation or some other exception. More likely the case will be that if we were shown to be non-compliant in the years 2013-2016 (which were the post settlement monitoring period) then we should not have been released from the settlement regime.

 

[MCC]

I'm sure if he hasn't done so already Stefan will advise you that UEFA's own regulations state that the limitation period commences from the date of the alleged breach not the date of the settlement.

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

That's interesting but it's hard to see that a few ambiguous Der Spiegel emails could be described as "substantial facts or evidence." This may well be what UEFA are trying to argue. I don't remember seeing anything about UEFA's Exec Committee applying to its own Investigation Committee to re-open the case though. FFS what a kangaroo court it has been.

 

[cityzen81]

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

The Der Speigel emails were leaked in Nov/Dec but they didn’t formally announce we were under investigation till the following March? That means they took longer than the 14 days they stipulate as well?

 

[hihosilva]

That's interesting but it's hard to see that a few ambiguous Der Spiegel emails could be described as "substantial facts or evidence." This may well be what UEFA are trying to argue. I don't remember seeing anything about UEFA's Exec Committee applying to its own Investigation Committee to re-open the case though. FFS what a kangaroo court it has been.

As i see it a few ambiguous emails are exactly what they are relying on plus a charge of city refusing to communicate.

 

[ancoats]

Ancoats. Couldn't agree more. Burnley saying they will run out of money in August just proves how clubs spend before they receive. They gamble on the future and it's not just Burnley too. And as for the history clubs who essentially are the same as the rest, their concern is that well managed City will take some of the pie, and without the whole pie, they will all go tits.

the thing i hated under swales at city was the loan taken on future season tickets sales crazy crazy way of running a football club. i know most clubs did it and still do it today but that is really taking the piss out of the fans ? city fans never once or asked or demanded a trophy or winning anything. we would turn up for the love of the club we would walk on burning coals to watch the game. even spending my last £1 on city in my younger days. it was that or music and city won most times

football is a crazy business and many clubs are built on sand.the debt is just hidden behind another name the clubs is using and most clubs have 2 or 3 trading names just to fudge the debt. this can not go on much longer after the covid-19 virus. the lessons must be learnt that building for tomorrow put some money away just in case. have a fund that you can not touch or lend money on. its got to be solid and untouchable

 

[ancoats]

even City have arrangements where they take payment from the bank secured against future prize money and TV income, it's part of business especially when your revenue streams and timings aren't constant.

its daft and crazy to loan money from banks on the future nobody knows the future ?? football need to change it need to clean its act up and clubs should be debt free and have future investment plans in place just for the very thing like covid-19 and its pandemic out break

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Yes - a ridiculous concept especially as it was deemed fair value at the full amount and the full amount is the audited value.

I know you’ve probably explained this ad nauseam already, but I flounder on this aspect of proceedings continually. If the email says Etihad only has to pay £8m of the £67m sponsorship, and ADUG stumps up the readies for the remaining £59m and feeds it into the club via Etihad, then surely this is disguised (and blatant) owner investment isn’t it? Why is it deemed a nonsense concept? Is whoever wrote the email mistaken?

 

[Mikeegrini]

Weren't allowed pop in our house. Mum and Dad thought they were doing us a favour health-wise but I just nicked me dad's cans of lager instead!

Sadly it was only Corporation Pop in our house, direct from the tap. :( Though I do remember nicking some of my step dads whiskey and topping it up with water, I must have been about 9/10. I was sooo careful not to put too much back in. So carefull it didn't really mix in and I got my arse walloped.