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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
KS55 said:
I doubt it would be time barred. Uefa could legitimately argue that a re-hearing is just a continuation of a process started in time.
Click to expand...

Not sure that the same thing. The uefa process to investigate us has clear parameters and time limits (largely ignored) but their ineptitude and skullduggery- well we can take issue with that and bring a case whenever we see fit if we feel it’s valid. Of course we’d have to prove UEFA acted in a way that damaged our business and we’d have to prove how we’d been impacted. I do think in time the volume of negativity produced by UEFA leaks could be proved to have had a material impact on our business. Apologies if that’s not what you meant.
 
Bluemeanster said:
Chairman and Chief Investigator
Yves Leterme (Belgium)

Members
Jacobo Beltrán (Spain)
Egon Franck (Germany)
Petros Mavroidis (Greece)
Damien Neven (Belgium)
Richard Parry (England) Former Liverpool CEO and Lifelong Liverpool fan
Konstantin Sonin (Russia)
Yves Wehrli (France)
Click to expand...

Absolutely dispicable, Parry should be removed and Chief Investigatir is a corrupt clown.
UEFA are corrupt to the core
 
KS55 said:
I doubt it would be time barred. Uefa could legitimately argue that a re-hearing is just a continuation of a process started in time.
Click to expand...

Who really knows. Article 37 of their rules says "prosecution is barred after 5 years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations"

Note that it says "prosecution" not investigation. So they can investigate forever but can't do anything about it once 5 years have elapsed from the alleged breach.

But they are a law unto themselves.
 
Incidentally, as far as we can see, one of our contentions appears to be that the investigation was hurried and incomplete to meet the 5 year deadline and therefore unfair and abuse of process.

If that's the case, we need to be squeaky clean in terms of compliance with requests for information. Any contributory delay in the process occasioned by non-co-operation, for example, on our part would mitigate against our argument.
 
Newman Noggs said:
Who really knows. Article 37 of their rules says "prosecution is barred after 5 years for all breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations"

Note that it says "prosecution" not investigation. So they can investigate forever but can't do anything about it once 5 years have elapsed from the alleged breach.

But they are a law unto themselves.
Click to expand...
As a general rule, the clock stops running once proceedings have begun. I would assume this is the case here, unless Uefa regs specifically say different.
 
KS55 said:
As a general rule, the clock stops running once proceedings have begun. I would assume this is the case here, unless Uefa regs specifically say different.
Click to expand...

That's correct. I'm not privy to the actual agreement but I'd have thought that the agreed sanction in relation to the breach of FFP and the resultant fine brought an end to the original proceedings.

Hence why the reported allegations relate to misleading the investigators not a breach of FFP.
 
citytilllidie said:
You look at the names on that investigative committee, and it appears they are all high flying politico's, one from each nation, and you wouldn't think any of them will have any investigative skills to carry out the task set them.

Market value of an advertising contract?
They would only know their own UEFA one wouldn't they?
Heineken, Mastercard, Gazprom etc. multi multi millions of Euro's, and they would have to get that information from their own financial guy.

Would a single one of them have any kind of a clue of the worldwide marketing value someone like City might have to one of their sponsors?

I would also imagine it being quite difficult to arrange a meeting where all of those people would be available at the same time to go through City's documents, without at least one of them saying, 'Sorry, I have another meeting in London, so have a flight to catch', leaving an exasperated gang with a load of paperwork to go through.

It's just not reasonable or practical to expect that body of high fliers to have the time, patience or nous to tackle this investigation.

It does actually look like they will have had a brainstorming session to see how they can get some kind of a ban on City before that deadline expired, and without having to read any of those 100 pages of explanations.
It almost looks like they've decided that they can't think of anything so feck it, let's just send it upstairs with recommendations to ban them for a year.

So there has to be some underlings doing it and God knows who's in charge there.
You know what these scousers are like, they get where water can't.
Apparently, you're never more than 6 foot away from a scouser at any one time.
So, Parry it is. - The Rat
Click to expand...

I think the assumption that they are doing the investigation themselves is a misrepresentation.

There will be a whole bunch of staff who collect figures and examples for each feature and then lay the details out for assessment - "here are corresponding valuations for club A, B and C".

There's every chance that someone on the staff is the source of the leaks not the 8 committee members - far less to lose if uncovered than one of the IC 8-man committee.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I think the assumption that they are doing the investigation themselves is a misrepresentation.

There will be a whole bunch of staff who collect figures and examples for each feature and then lay the details out for assessment - "here are corresponding valuations for club A, B and C".

There's every chance that someone on the staff is the source of the leaks not the 8 committee members - far less to lose if uncovered than one of the IC 8-man committee.
Click to expand...

We're guessing, of course, but I'd say its most likely to be someone outside of the committee but senior enough to be privy to the investigation.

Either way, it's immaterial to the fact that there has been a leak and its the regulatory body's responsibility to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.

City will be absolutely hammering this point and UEFA will be running round trying to cover its arse. As I said on the day, it's a major, major dropped bollock thanks to someone who got giddy and just couldn't wait to tarnish our treble.
 
Newman Noggs said:
That's correct. I'm not privy to the actual agreement but I'd have thought that the agreed sanction in relation to the breach of FFP and the resultant fine brought an end to the original proceedings.

Hence why the reported allegations relate to misleading the investigators not a breach of FFP.
Click to expand...
Yes, original case ended. But Uefa regs allow them to re-open if new info comes to light, provided less than 5 years has passed. Do we know what the likely charge is? Has this been officially stated? I am aware of quotes like " if they have been deceiving us", but have the adjudication chamber said what the charge is? Has the investigatory chamber recommended a charge? Leaks, counter leaks, fried leaks.
 
UEFA latest.
" We think City have been a bit naughty, but we can't really prove it. Also, they are about to give us a load of grief at CAS, and in the press. We have decided to give them a slap and tell them not to do it again. Case closed, with apologies to Liverpool, Manyoo, Bayern, the Spanish FA, and anyone else with a vested interest.".
Rick Parry is....?garbled comms.
 
KS55 said:
Yes, original case ended. But Uefa regs allow them to re-open if new info comes to light, provided less than 5 years has passed. Do we know what the likely charge is? Has this been officially stated? I am aware of quotes like " if they have been deceiving us", but have the adjudication chamber said what the charge is? Has the investigatory chamber recommended a charge? Leaks, counter leaks, fried leaks.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know the answers. We are speculating but, I would suggest, with as much, if not more, knowledge of the subject than most of those opining in the media.

I was looking into whether proceedings at the CAS are public and, according to their rules, they don't appear to be. However, there's a drugs case involving Mutu, the footballer and Pechstein, a skater, which, despite rejecting their claims made a ruling about the right to a public hearing under Article 6 of the ECHR suggesting that CAS should have acceded to Pechstein's request for one.

The decision is more nuanced than that and, anyway, it may be that neither side would want the dirty laundry being aired in public. I bloody would though.
 
Newman Noggs said:
We're guessing, of course, but I'd say its most likely to be someone outside of the committee but senior enough to be privy to the investigation.

Either way, it's immaterial to the fact that there has been a leak and its the regulatory body's responsibility to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.

City will be absolutely hammering this point and UEFA will be running round trying to cover its arse. As I said on the day, it's a major, major dropped bollock thanks to someone who got giddy and just couldn't wait to tarnish our treble.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes and not so sure about that!
 
Newman Noggs said:
Incidentally, as far as we can see, one of our contentions appears to be that the investigation was hurried and incomplete to meet the 5 year deadline and therefore unfair and abuse of process.

If that's the case, we need to be squeaky clean in terms of compliance with requests for information. Any contributory delay in the process occasioned by non-co-operation, for example, on our part would mitigate against our argument.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought that too, which made me wonder did we drop the 100 page document on them right at the death with the intention of causing this exact issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top