CFCB independent investigators are paid by UEFA, bound by UEFA Statues, rules and regulations, have an office and staff funded by UEFA located at UEFA HQ but they are
independent of UEFA. Anyhow some relevant points on their documented procedure(s)
Anyhow the CFCB proceedures are here
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/28/72/46/2287246_DOWNLOAD.pdf
and some applicable extracts on the process up to the point we are at now with my rantings in brackets are below.
Article 10 – Confidentiality Members of the CFCB ensure complete confidentiality of all facts that come to their attention in the course of their duties and, in particular, refrain from divulging the contents of deliberations.
( Well clearly this was fucked up with the deliberate leak to the press whoops UEFA)
III. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE CFCB
Chapter 1 – Investigatory Chamber Article 12 – Tasks of the CFCB chief investigator (This the Belgian Goat Breeder)
1 The CFCB chief investigator leads the monitoring process and the investigation proceedings.
2 An investigation can be opened ex officio or upon request.
(By a German rag in this case)
3 The CFCB chief investigator establishes the facts and collects all relevant evidence.
4 The CFCB chief investigator leads the investigation proceedings himself or assigns this role to another member of the investigatory chamber.
( No way this was being delegated )
Article 13 –
Collection of evidence
1 The CFCB chief investigator may, on his own initiative or, where appropriate, at the request of the defendant, convene a hearing as part of his investigation.
(According to the Club this wasn’t done)
2 All means of evidence may be considered by the CFCB chief investigator. This includes, but is not limited to, the defendant’s testimony, witness testimonies, documents and records, recordings (audio or video), on-site inspections and expert reports.
3 The defendant may consult the case file.
(Implication from the Club this wasn’t done)
4 The CFCB chief investigator may set a suitable time limit for the defendant to submit its observations and/or submit or request complementary evidence
. (Apparently the complementary evidence of “Facts” was not taken in account)
5 Article 14 – End of the investigation
1 At the end of the investigation, the CFCB chief investigator, after having consulted with the other members of the investigatory chamber, may decide to:
a) dismiss the case; or
b) conclude, with the consent of the defendant, a settlement agreement; or
c) apply, with the consent of the defendant, disciplinary measures limited to a warning, a reprimand or a fine up to a maximum amount of €100,000; or
d) refer the case to the adjudicatory chamber. 2 The decision of the CFCB chief investigator is notified to the defendant in writing. 3 Decisions of the CFCB chief investigator shall be forwarded to the CFCB chairman. 4 Decisions of the CFCB chief investigator pursuant to Article 14(1)(b) or Article 14(1)(c) shall be published within five days from the date of their communication to the defendant. 5 The CFCB chief investigator may, following a reasoned request from the defendant made within two days from the date of communication of the decision, redact the decision to protect confidential information or personal data.
Article 17 – Decision of the CFCB chief investigator to refer a case to the adjudicatory chamber 1 Any decision of the CFCB chief investigator to refer a case to the adjudicatory chamber shall contain:
a) a concise summary of the facts
; (Er you mis led us and the ex-G14 are scared shitless doesn’t really meet this criteria)
b) an outline of the gathered evidence;
(The Club didn’t seem impressed on this front)
c) a description of the nature of the alleged breach(es);
d) a reference to the provision(s) alleged to have been breached;
e) a proposal to the adjudicatory chamber as regards the final decision to be taken, including, where appropriate, any disciplinary measures
. (Looks like the IC started at Article 17.e forgot about Article 10 and went backwards)
2 Further information may be requested from the CFCB chief investigator by the adjudicatory chamber at any time in the course of the judgment stage.
(presumably the IC will now be backtracking and completing the Article 13 investigation and evidence gathering analysis part)
When comparing the UEFA procedures to the wording and tone of the Club statement, it certainly appears on face value that UEFA have done some serious corner cutting to meet the statue of time limitation. If as implied and the club have not been shown the case file the IC put against the defendant then by their own process the case should not have been escalated to the AC as per Article 13 .3. I fully expect the AC to find us guilty but would be absolutely amazed if the CAS upholds what appears to a sham that started with a punishment, leaked punishment to press and then trying to join enough dots to justify a predetermined outcome. The CAS case is essentially to ensure UEFA followed their own guidelines and I don’t see how they get any where near that mark.
P.S UEFA also accept in that document that Swiss law is applicable
