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

[nmc]

Perhaps our lawyers can see a way to go to the Swiss Courts, if necessary.

If UEFA try to impose a ban on us that is unreasonable by bending their rules to suit or by ignoring facts, we may have cause for legal action in the jurisdiction that governs the MOU, which I've not read beyond scanning what's on previous pages.

I don't know Swiss Law and I'm not expert on English Law but I've had plenty of interaction with legal folk in my working life and even had to study the basics of contract law as part of my training way back. I am pretty sure that in UK contracts can be deemed unenforceable or parts can. Also, parties to a contract often end up having legal disputes over those contracts. The thing often is that you have to go to court to find out.

We have at least one experienced lawyer who uses this forum who could comment but I have seen nothing yet to convince me City cannot make a legal challenge in court but I'd like to hear an expert opinion because I may be wrong.

You get lots of clauses in contracts in the U.K. that on the face of it are legally binding and both parties sign up to them but that does not make them legally binding. A classic example is an employment clause that states that an employee has intimate knowledge of his employers business and should he or she resign they cannot take up employment with a competitor. Companies insert these clauses all the time - they rarely get contested because the lawyers writing them know they are unenforceable; and where they do go to court I’ve never seen one be enforced. People resign and freely join a competitor in breach of the so called legally binding restriction. It’s easy to make clauses up in your own office but that doesn’t make them legally enforceable. Equally, organisations go to huge lengths to insert legal wording to support these pointless clauses (in the hope the other party thinks they have value) - but it’s often just pre rehearsed bluster between an organisation and its lawyers - (the lawyers will make the organisation aware that its a clause that will likely fall at the first hurdle) and we know UEFA have a PhD in bluster and hot air.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

I wonder if CAS will take into consideration that we historically signed up to the rules yet our 100 page document will clearly show that uefa disregard their own rules and procedures so they misled us into signing their paperwork?

No expert but I would say so. As we know, UEFA competitions are by invitation. When they made their offer for us to play in one of their competitions it would be implicit that BOTH parties apply by the rules. It'll probably turn into a shit fight as to who who broke what rules and when. Still don't fancy our chances, the cartel have decided they're having us by hook or by crook.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Surely our argument would be, that UEFA have acted in bad faith re the 'agreement' therefore, off we go, to court ?

Of course. I'd draw attention to clause A3 which contains the objectives of the agreement;

"a commitment to assure that standards and principles of good governance such as accountability, democracy, shareholder participation/representation are firmly embedded within football governance structures"

"a commitment to open and balanced sporting competitions"

"a commitment to protect and develop a large and healthy professional football sector"

An MoU, even one that purports to be legally binding has to be entered into in good faith by BOTH sides. Can any of the above objectives be demonstrated to be untrue ? I'd say so.

It is also telling that the restrictions on taking remedial action against UEFA are onerously restrictive much to the glee of our friends in the media. That being the case, the impartial question would be "why ?". Why would an organisation committed to such good causes need to protect itself to the nth degree from independent scrutiny. The answer seems pretty obvious to me.

One last point that occurs, and I stand to be corrected on this, is that no group of people can enter into an MoU relating to activities that are against the law. So whatever they agree amongst themselves, if FFP is illegal, as I believe it is, no amount of UEFA and Agnelli (and his being the signatory on behalf of the ECA tells a story) over-rides that.

Again, it tells it is telling that FIFA has based itself in Switzerland. However, as the first 3 points in the memorandum detail, the rules govern football/clubs "at European level" and plying their trade in Europe. Much as UEFA may point to their extra-jurisdictional offices, I'm not sure they can escape European law.

We are taking on the establishment here and it is a war. We may lose battles but it's important not to allow ourselves to be distracted by bloggers like Castles, McGeehan etc and veer from confidence to despair. We'll win the war.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Interesting read...

https://www.goal.com/en/news/footba...rturn-ffp-in-court/1jtln6fw19enj1pwwn7sm11m7t

Yeh, but not a particularly reassuring one!

 

[Corky]

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I don't know is the honest answer to that. But here's something to consider. If Sheik Mansour feels he's being shafted do you think he'll just pack up and say "oh well, it was good while it lasted "

Take a look at his personal and commercial wealth and portfolios of his successful businesses across the globe.

You don't get to achieve that level of business acumen by being a pushover.

As you are unable to think of any, what about a high stakes card game like the plot of Casino Royale?

 

[Henkeman]

Not sure there's any indication whatever that City are after FFP as a whole. They made their angle of attack abundantly clear when they used the phrase "hostile process". It's not the rules, it's the application of them and the belief that they are being politically abused to target one club.

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

According to some law experts the seem to think ffp can be challenged, but that it would be best to take the case to a national court rather than the EU court

The experts state that the EU court has recognised ffp as a whole, but that any challenge on how the law is applied woukd be the way forward - ala AC Milan court case

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

Yeh, but not a particularly reassuring one!

I believe that we can take ffp to court, but this article seems to highlight it would be best to take the case to a national court rather than the EU court

The law experts state in that article that (as AC Milan did) to challenge how the ffp law is applied - this of course will depend on what sanction we are hit with.

At present we have provided documentation that the club states confirms we have not broken any rule - hence this first challenge. If we do get sanctioned still i then expect the club to take the case to a national court to get the sanction and how it was applied thrown out

 

[SilverFox2]

I'd say CAS are more likely to be concerned with whether or not UEFA have implemented their own rules and procedures correctly

Yes, sorry I didn't make it clear that my question referred to potential legal action elsewhere.

 

[OB1]

You get lots of clauses in contracts in the U.K. that on the face of it are legally binding and both parties sign up to them but that does not make them legally binding. A classic example is an employment clause that states that an employee has intimate knowledge of his employers business and should he or she resign they cannot take up employment with a competitor. Companies insert these clauses all the time - they rarely get contested because the lawyers writing them know they are unenforceable; and where they do go to court I’ve never seen one be enforced. People resign and freely join a competitor in breach of the so called legally binding restriction. It’s easy to make clauses up in your own office but that doesn’t make them legally enforceable. Equally, organisations go to huge lengths to insert legal wording to support these pointless clauses (in the hope the other party thinks they have value) - but it’s often just pre rehearsed bluster between an organisation and its lawyers - (the lawyers will make the organisation aware that its a clause that will likely fall at the first hurdle) and we know UEFA have a PhD in bluster and hot air.

Yup. I've actually signed a contract with a clause in that my lawyer thought would be unenforceable (on me and) I simply chose not to spend time and money negotiating the point.