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

[BlueLook]

"CAS not knowing about UEFA rules" just makes no sense in this context.

 

[Newman Noggs]

CAS is an arbitration service for resolving disputes. There should be some guidance as to when and in what circumstances they take a case

What the Guardian/Conn says may be true but it seems incongruous to me that a potential defendant should be able to set regulations as to what can be appealed. "Guidance" yes since that has no legal force, but not rules since the point of a Court, even one of arbitration, should be to settle any regulatory dispute. Hence it should be flexible and not prescribed other than by its judges.

Indeed, it may be that the CAS has accepted our application but will decide that, at this stage it doesn't have the jurisdiction but that will be for a judge to decide, not UEFA. Personally, I'd be surprised if that happens because Courts don't generally like being told what they can and can't opine on. But they may.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

CAS is an arbitration service for resolving disputes. There should be some guidance as to when and in what circumstances they take a case

Probably when the Der Spiegel allegations surfaced and he was a lone voice suggesting a ban was unlikely....probably then an inside view from UEFA.

I disagree, if you’re being treated like shit, and being met with hostility at every turn despite playing along why should you not be allowed to take them to task because they don’t want you to? Dodgy as fuck

 

[KS55]

I can’t believe a Guardian hack has more insight than our Lawyers.

I'm sure our lawyers knew this. This is a tactic.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Finance not his thing then ?

Only when it suits him, apparently

 

[roxy]

David Conn also wrote an article entitled "FC United of Manchester: the success story that proves what fans can achieve."

Well I’d say FCSCUM was a success. We’ve certainly seen what their fans can do.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I'd be shocked if they weren't familiar with UEFA rules

I'd be shocked if UEFA didn't just make the rules fit the situation they are faced with .

 

[citizen_maine]

I don't understand why CAS would issue a press release saying they've registered our appeal in the knowledge it is against the rules for us to lodge an appeal at this stage.

I suppose it comes down to the fact they (CAS) will need to be 'seen' to be independent, so will review every submission they receive as if it is the first they've ever received? It might also be down to who is seen as being first to break the process. If we've been seen to break the process early by going straight to CAS, but UEFA are seen to have broken it before we did, by failing to apply their own processes accurately and timeously, then...

 

[nmc]

Conn’s view might be correct but it’s no doubt ridiculous... of course that just aligns with UEFA’s arrogance, which may or may not be reflected in their rules , hence why Conn might sound ridiculous. IF we are precluded from referring our case to CAS at this time... which may be the case, it’s only a matter of timing. Once the inevitable guilty verdict is passed by the aptly named ‘upper chamber’ we can appeal and at that point like any defendant we will be able to appeal (the difference being we have a guilty verdict hanging over us, our brand will be further damaged and we may want to pursue UEFA for this damage at a later date) and no doubt our grounds will be 1) the process was flawed (which is what we are saying now) 2) based on the evidence UEFA came to an incorrect decision and an independent review of the facts would draw a different conclusion 3) even if we are guilty the punishment doesn’t fit the crime - a minor financial misdemeanour, of no financial consequence results in a CL ban that could cost us circa £100m.

Without seeing any of the facts or evidence it’s impossible for anyone to predict the outcome of this case but it does seem odd that the whole footie leaks / Der Spiegel debacle has seen only one club in the dock, the process has been accompanied by numerous leaks from Uefa- which include detailed discussions of the punishment (making the outcome look pre -prescribed). City will no doubt have a media lawyer in their team and they will be presenting the negative media into this case and picking out the similar negative themes of the press - did all the press arrive at a similar guilty verdict and the same punishment- or did UEFA brief this... presented well CAS will be in no doubt that someone at UEFAs grubby hands are all over this case. The make up of the upper chamber almost certainly contains someone with a conflict of interest (Parry) and whom could be potentially the source of the leaks when you examine the timing of the said leaks. As a minimum Parry should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the process... I can’t believe UEFAs rules don’t require this. Conflicts of interest are not time bound - just because you resign a post the conflict doesn’t disappear (does it Mr. Gill? ). City for their part look confident, given the culture of our owners it’s unlikely they’d be this bullish if they were not confident of their case - if they were guilty or felt uncomfortable they’d be doing a deal and this is probably the best insight we have, our owners are not willing to take a “pinch’... they feel singled out and wronged...and I suspect this is the case. The launching of this appeal to CAS may or may not be allowed to proceed now but our owners are telling UEFA - line your ducks up because we are not doing a deal, do your worst because we will fight this all the way and ultimately we reserve the right to destroy you and your little cartel when we’ve got you bang to rights for trying to frame and punish us for something we didn’t do. We are in the dock now but if Khaldoon is right and we are innocent then ask yourself what’s been going on inside UEFA for an innocent party to be harangued and pursued like this - the fall out from this could be huge. Ultimately UEFA will try to sweep this away - I suspect our owners might let them if we are proved innocent etc... but I really wish we would pull the rug from under the self entitled cesspit.

 

[chesterbells]

Only when it suits him, apparently

100% the case.

He’s definitely no fan of the Manchester City of 2019 from what I’ve read. He apparently has a political/worldview which means he is fundamentally opposed to the way our club is these days. He doesn’t think it’s how football should be, period.

It’s all very well people saying his views on us shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, he’s a quality journalist, etc, but he will never be worth listening to re us nowadays because this view of us will always be through a tainted prism.

 

[petrusha]

In “Richer than God”, Conn job wrote that he lost some faith with City when he met Franny Lee soon after the takeover, who only appeared to be interested in the money from Sky. Franny had been Conn’s hero as a player.

He turned up to interview Franny for a north west business publication and said that the experience left him knowing that he'd been "talking to a businessman", as if it was the most pejorative label that could possibly be attached to an interviewee. What disgraceful temerity from Franny. Someone arrives to interview you for a business magazine and you talk about business. Conn's description of the episode sounds laughably juvenile.

He's knowledgeable though. And his opinion should not be automatically dismissed.

He's knowledgeable but not to the degree a lot of people think. He has nothing like the level of insight that someone such as Stefan from the 93:20 pod does, but then Stefan is CEO of a public company and also their senior in-house lawyer, with a track record of having advised the boards of top football clubs in his past. Conn qualified as a solicitor but left the profession immediately after doing so. As someone who's supervised newly qualified solicitors and has been one, I can tell you that their ability to navigate complex legal issues such as this is really not all that. He's probably the most knowledgeable current British journalist about business issues in sport, but very much in an 'in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King' kind of way.

I gave my view of this latest piece by Conn in this thread last night, and at quite some length. It's possible he may be right, but if he is, it seems a senseless move from City's point of view. Yet if he's made any attempt to discern why City may be more confident of their case than he is, or what arguments we may put forward that distinguish the case from the precedent he refers to in his article, there's absolutely no sign of it. He may well have asked for a view from a sports law expert before writing, but the problem with that is that to get the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. I don't think I can be confident that he has.

More generally, Conn has shifted away from his usual subject matter when started out, which had a focus on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game. Then, he wrote for The Independent and produced two excellent books. In those days, I thought he was very good - and sometimes better than that. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as a self-appointed conscience of modern football. Beyond some half-baked fan ownership nonsense, never does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.

Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.

All these faults were fully evident in Richer Than God, which I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Like so many of his articles, the book merely served as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.

So sorry, Marvin. You admire Conn if you want to. But put me down in the 'not a fan' camp.

 

[chesterbells]

Conn’s view might be correct but it’s no doubt ridiculous... of course that just aligns with UEFA’s arrogance, which may or may not be reflected in their rules , hence why Conn might sound ridiculous. IF we are precluded from referring our case to CAS at this time... which may be the case, it’s only a matter of timing. Once the inevitable guilty verdict is passed by the aptly named ‘upper chamber’ we can appeal and at that point like any defendant we will be able to appeal (the difference being we have a guilty verdict hanging over us, our brand will be further damaged and we may want to pursue UEFA for this damage at a later date) and no doubt our grounds will be 1) the process was flawed (which is what we are saying now) 2) based on the evidence UEFA came to an incorrect decision and an independent review of the facts would draw a different conclusion 3) even if we are guilty the punishment doesn’t fit the crime - a minor financial misdemeanour, of no financial consequence results in a CL ban that could cost us circa £100m.

Without seeing any of the facts or evidence it’s impossible for anyone to predict the outcome of this case but it does seem odd that the whole footie leaks / Der Spiegel debacle has seen only one club in the dock, the process has been accompanied by numerous leaks from Uefa- which include detailed discussions of the punishment (making the outcome look pre -prescribed). City will no doubt have a media lawyer in their team and they will be presenting the negative media into this case and picking out the similar negative themes of the press - did all the press arrive at a similar guilty verdict and the same punishment- or did UEFA brief this... presented well CAS will be in no doubt that someone at UEFAs grubby hands are all over this case. The make up of the upper chamber almost certainly contains someone with a conflict of interest (Parry) and whom could be potentially the source of the leaks when you examine the timing of the said leaks. As a minimum Parry should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the process... I can’t believe UEFAs rules don’t require this. Conflicts of interest are not time bound - just because you resign a post the conflict doesn’t disappear (does it Mr. Gill? ). City for their part look confident, given the culture of our owners it’s unlikely they’d be this bullish if they were not confident of their case - if they were guilty or felt uncomfortable they’d be doing a deal and this is probably the best insight we have, our owners are not willing to take a “pinch’... they feel singled out and wronged...and I suspect this is the case. The launching of this appeal to CAS may or may not be allowed to proceed now but our owners are telling UEFA - line your ducks up because we are not doing a deal, do your worst because we will fight this all the way and ultimately we reserve the right to destroy you and your little cartel when we’ve got you bang to rights for trying to frame and punish us for something we didn’t do. We are in the dock now but if Khaldoon is right and we are innocent then ask yourself what’s been going on inside UEFA for an innocent party to be harangued and pursued like this - the fall out from this could be huge. Ultimately UEFA will try to sweep this away - I suspect our owners might let them if we are proved innocent etc... but I really wish we would pull the rug from under the self care entitled cesspit.

Long paragraphs there. Anyone would think you felt strongly about this.
Agree fully btw ;-)

 

[bluenova]

What the Guardian/Conn says may be true but it seems incongruous to me that a potential defendant should be able to set regulations as to what can be appealed. "Guidance" yes since that has no legal force, but not rules since the point of a Court, even one of arbitration, should be to settle any regulatory dispute. Hence it should be flexible and not prescribed other than by its judges.

Indeed, it may be that the CAS has accepted our application but will decide that, at this stage it doesn't have the jurisdiction but that will be for a judge to decide, not UEFA. Personally, I'd be surprised if that happens because Courts don't generally like being told what they can and can't opine on. But they may.

I'm not fully up on the legal intricacies/terminology, but CAS is quasi-judicial, and can agree it's scope with UEFA. It's there to avoid sports having to deal with the full court systems in countries all over the world, but doesn't want to be the first port of call in every aspect of every dispute.

As with a complaints procedure, you often have to have exhausted the internal complaint route, before you're allowed to go to arbitration.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

I read Richer than God. It makes some good points.

Conn is knowledgeable. Maybe he is an idealist.

 

[SWP's back]

Guardian today says UEFA rules preclude appeal over referral
Manchester City’s Cas appeal against Uefa FFP referral likely to fail https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...o-fail?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Good find. Says it’s written by some guy called David Conn, anyone know anything about him?

 

[bluenova]

I can’t believe a Guardian hack has more insight than our Lawyers.

Now that assumes that "Lawyers" are right. Very good lawyers will provide a strong argument that 1+1=3. Other very good lawyers will counter that 1+1=banana.

David Conn probably spoke to some very good lawyers before writing his article, rather than just providing his own insight.

City's lawyers may even agree with him, but have decided it's tactically best to argue the case at this stage. A shot across the bow, showing City are ready to go to CAS, while knowing there won't be a hearing at this stage? UEFA are then making a decision knowing it's less likely City are bluffing about challenging them.

 

[andyhinch]

Good find. Says it’s written by some guy called David Conn, anyone know anything about him?

Big City fan or so I’m told ;-)

 

[Newman Noggs]

I'm not fully up on the legal intricacies/terminology, but CAS is quasi-judicial, and can agree it's scope with UEFA. It's there to avoid sports having to deal with the full court systems in countries all over the world, but doesn't want to be the first port of call in every aspect of every dispute.

As with a complaints procedure, you often have to have exhausted the internal complaint route, before you're allowed to go to arbitration.

A fair and, possibly conclusive point, but I'd argue that abuse of process, the right to a fair trial being implicit in those agreed perameters, is so fundamental to any regulatory framework that alleged clear and wilful abuse, together with the accruing financial, operational and reputational consequences would make this an exceptional case.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[oakiecokie]

So how long have you been a couple?

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[toffee balls]

Conn’s view might be correct but it’s no doubt ridiculous... of course that just aligns with UEFA’s arrogance, which may or may not be reflected in their rules , hence why Conn might sound ridiculous. IF we are precluded from referring our case to CAS at this time... which may be the case, it’s only a matter of timing. Once the inevitable guilty verdict is passed by the aptly named ‘upper chamber’ we can appeal and at that point like any defendant we will be able to appeal (the difference being we have a guilty verdict hanging over us, our brand will be further damaged and we may want to pursue UEFA for this damage at a later date) and no doubt our grounds will be 1) the process was flawed (which is what we are saying now) 2) based on the evidence UEFA came to an incorrect decision and an independent review of the facts would draw a different conclusion 3) even if we are guilty the punishment doesn’t fit the crime - a minor financial misdemeanour, of no financial consequence results in a CL ban that could cost us circa £100m.

Without seeing any of the facts or evidence it’s impossible for anyone to predict the outcome of this case but it does seem odd that the whole footie leaks / Der Spiegel debacle has seen only one club in the dock, the process has been accompanied by numerous leaks from Uefa- which include detailed discussions of the punishment (making the outcome look pre -prescribed). City will no doubt have a media lawyer in their team and they will be presenting the negative media into this case and picking out the similar negative themes of the press - did all the press arrive at a similar guilty verdict and the same punishment- or did UEFA brief this... presented well CAS will be in no doubt that someone at UEFAs grubby hands are all over this case. The make up of the upper chamber almost certainly contains someone with a conflict of interest (Parry) and whom could be potentially the source of the leaks when you examine the timing of the said leaks. As a minimum Parry should have declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the process... I can’t believe UEFAs rules don’t require this. Conflicts of interest are not time bound - just because you resign a post the conflict doesn’t disappear (does it Mr. Gill? ). City for their part look confident, given the culture of our owners it’s unlikely they’d be this bullish if they were not confident of their case - if they were guilty or felt uncomfortable they’d be doing a deal and this is probably the best insight we have, our owners are not willing to take a “pinch’... they feel singled out and wronged...and I suspect this is the case. The launching of this appeal to CAS may or may not be allowed to proceed now but our owners are telling UEFA - line your ducks up because we are not doing a deal, do your worst because we will fight this all the way and ultimately we reserve the right to destroy you and your little cartel when we’ve got you bang to rights for trying to frame and punish us for something we didn’t do. We are in the dock now but if Khaldoon is right and we are innocent then ask yourself what’s been going on inside UEFA for an innocent party to be harangued and pursued like this - the fall out from this could be huge. Ultimately UEFA will try to sweep this away - I suspect our owners might let them if we are proved innocent etc... but I really wish we would pull the rug from under the self entitled cesspit.

Great post.