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

[KS55]

Agree with this. I follow Chadwick on Twitter because his tweets sometimes contain interesting links. However, I often find his own analysis lacking the authority I'd expect from someone with his qualifications.



With regard to the highlighted part, you may well be right but I personally don't take this as a given. This is mainly because, if it's true, I really don't see our application as making sense in strategic terms. UEFA will have been blindsided by our application to the CAS at this stage, but any concern on their part quickly dissipates if you have only a no-hope case. In fact, putting forward a case that they can effortlessly swat away and that the CAS will haughtily dismiss will simply make UEFA more confident in an "If that's the best they can come up with, we really don't have much to worry about" kind of way. On the other hand, if we put forward a credibly arguable case and UEFA still win, they'll know they've been in a fight and will proceed with a degree of concern.

Moreover, a defeat in a first application to the CAS would be damaging to City in PR terms. Imagine the glee with which our detractors will greet it: they'll be delighted to take the chance to trumpet that the cheats are merely full of bluster and the CAS has seen through us. If we have a significant chance, even if it's fifty-fifty or perhaps as low as one in three, then there's a viable prospect of a significant upside (throwing a spoke in the wheel of UEFA's process) to balance against the risk of the downside. But to accept an inevitable reputational battering when the prospect of the upside is more or less zero? That doesn't make much sense to me.

It's difficult to assess the merits of City's legal arguments without access to information that isn't in the public domain. However, the analysis so far put forward suggests that the Milan case is a decisive precedent. Having read the judgment in that case, I'm not absolutely sure that it will be for three principal reasons:

1. City seem not to be challenging the merits of the decision but the procedure via which it was reached. In Milan's case, the punishment would have been struck out, whereas for us it would remain possible for the IC to begin a new investigation and do it properly this time.
2. In the Milan case, the CAS suggested that it would have had the power to intervene at the stage of the IC referral if that had been necessary to safeguard Milan's interests but it declined to do so because Milan's interests were already sufficiently protected. On the face of it, MCFC's argument for this kind of discretion to be exercised is stronger than Milan's was if there are serious procedural breaches on UEFA's side and if our conduct in timely supplying information and the like has been beyond reproach. After all, in Milan's case the AC was taking a decision based on an investigation whose propriety was unchallenged. That's not the case with us, and we'll argue that, therefore, the AC's decision would inevitably be compromised so they shouldn't be invited to take it given the reputational repercussions for us as a club of an adverse AC decision.
3. Thirdly, I've read that City are also running a further and different argument that there's no case to answer and the decision to initiate an investigation was flawed so should be set aside. The Milan case isn't a precedent with regard to this argument.

So it seems to me that there's the kernel here of some viable legal arguments that could, in the right circumstances, even be quite strong. However, and here's the rub, they can only be convincing if City have extremely compelling evidence of procedural breaches, inherent bias and a lack of proper cause to initiate the investigation in the first place. Many Blue Mooners take it as gospel that we do have such evidence. They're wrong to do so - we simply have no idea of what the evidence is so can't assess its strength. As I wrote previously, to try to do so is a fool's errand.

So maybe I'm wrong about City's strategy. Perhaps for some strange reason they're prepared to go forward with a case that they know they'll undoubtedly lose. And maybe there are other CAS precedents, in cases more similar to City's than Milan's was, suggesting that the CAS will regard the possibility of an appeal against an eventual AC decision as a sufficient safeguard of MCFC's interests. However, so far it's the Milan case that's been put forward as the reason why City's application is likely to fail. It may well fail, of course, but I don't think the position is quite as cut and dried as many others seem to.

Strongly agree with points at no 2.
Light at the end of the tunnel, maybe

 

[Len Rum]

Question to all expert legal punters out there:
Our current appeal is based on challenging the validity of the process only. If UEFA issue a judgement before that appeal is heard then I assume we will submit a second additional appeal which challenges the UEFA judgement?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Question to all expert legal punters out there:
Our current appeal is based on challenging the validity of the process only. If UEFA issue a judgement before that appeal is heard then I assume we will submit a second additional appeal which challenges the UEFA judgement?

From a layman's viewpoint, I'd guess they'd have to - only have a specific window (14 days?) to appeal, so they'd be forced to do so.

 

[Centurions]

Question to all expert legal punters out there:
Our current appeal is based on challenging the validity of the process only. If UEFA issue a judgement before that appeal is heard then I assume we will submit a second additional appeal which challenges the UEFA judgement?

I'm no legal anything but I'd be gobsmacked if UEFA make any further comment until CAS have finished their deliberations.

 

[hello]

Agree with this. I follow Chadwick on Twitter because his tweets sometimes contain interesting links. However, I often find his own analysis lacking the authority I'd expect from someone with his qualifications.



With regard to the highlighted part, you may well be right but I personally don't take this as a given. This is mainly because, if it's true, I really don't see our application as making sense in strategic terms. UEFA will have been blindsided by our application to the CAS at this stage, but any concern on their part quickly dissipates if you have only a no-hope case. In fact, putting forward a case that they can effortlessly swat away and that the CAS will haughtily dismiss will simply make UEFA more confident in an "If that's the best they can come up with, we really don't have much to worry about" kind of way. On the other hand, if we put forward a credibly arguable case and UEFA still win, they'll know they've been in a fight and will proceed with a degree of concern.

Moreover, a defeat in a first application to the CAS would be damaging to City in PR terms. Imagine the glee with which our detractors will greet it: they'll be delighted to take the chance to trumpet that the cheats are merely full of bluster and the CAS has seen through us. If we have a significant chance, even if it's fifty-fifty or perhaps as low as one in three, then there's a viable prospect of a significant upside (throwing a spoke in the wheel of UEFA's process) to balance against the risk of the downside. But to accept an inevitable reputational battering when the prospect of the upside is more or less zero? That doesn't make much sense to me.

It's difficult to assess the merits of City's legal arguments without access to information that isn't in the public domain. However, the analysis so far put forward suggests that the Milan case is a decisive precedent. Having read the judgment in that case, I'm not absolutely sure that it will be for three principal reasons:

1. City seem not to be challenging the merits of the decision but the procedure via which it was reached. In Milan's case, the punishment would have been struck out, whereas for us it would remain possible for the IC to begin a new investigation and do it properly this time.
2. In the Milan case, the CAS suggested that it would have had the power to intervene at the stage of the IC referral if that had been necessary to safeguard Milan's interests but it declined to do so because Milan's interests were already sufficiently protected. On the face of it, MCFC's argument for this kind of discretion to be exercised is stronger than Milan's was if there are serious procedural breaches on UEFA's side and if our conduct in timely supplying information and the like has been beyond reproach. After all, in Milan's case the AC was taking a decision based on an investigation whose propriety was unchallenged. That's not the case with us, and we'll argue that, therefore, the AC's decision would inevitably be compromised so they shouldn't be invited to take it given the reputational repercussions for us as a club of an adverse AC decision.
3. Thirdly, I've read that City are also running a further and different argument that there's no case to answer and the decision to initiate an investigation was flawed so should be set aside. The Milan case isn't a precedent with regard to this argument.

So it seems to me that there's the kernel here of some viable legal arguments that could, in the right circumstances, even be quite strong. However, and here's the rub, they can only be convincing if City have extremely compelling evidence of procedural breaches, inherent bias and a lack of proper cause to initiate the investigation in the first place. Many Blue Mooners take it as gospel that we do have such evidence. They're wrong to do so - we simply have no idea of what the evidence is so can't assess its strength. As I wrote previously, to try to do so is a fool's errand.

So maybe I'm wrong about City's strategy. Perhaps for some strange reason they're prepared to go forward with a case that they know they'll undoubtedly lose. And maybe there are other CAS precedents, in cases more similar to City's than Milan's was, suggesting that the CAS will regard the possibility of an appeal against an eventual AC decision as a sufficient safeguard of MCFC's interests. However, so far it's the Milan case that's been put forward as the reason why City's application is likely to fail. It may well fail, of course, but I don't think the position is quite as cut and dried as many others seem to.

Totally agreed with the AC Milan case being largely irrelevant and in no way a legal precedent ensuring it will be kicked straight out as reported.
I had a quick 15 minute look through the CAS archives this morning, and concluded Conn is a muppet for using the AC Milan precedent and found 4 other examples where CAS agreed to rule on the IC process as a basis of appeal and agreed with the appellants merits for doing so. They dismissed all 4 in favour of UEFA but they were what might be called frivolous appeals looking at the conclusions.

And whilst everyone knows about the article 10 breach in confidentially, their certainly isn't enough details in the public domain to say the CFCB IC adhered to or breached article 13 which I think would be the crux of whether the appeal would be successful or not, IF CFCB breached article 10 with the leaks but adhered to 13 the collation and investigation process I would expect CAS to dismiss the appeal and give UEFA a strongly worded bollocking for the confidentiality breach.

 

[B\connellblue]

Can somebody clear up for me whether these emails were leaked or stolen? Thanks!

 

[petrusha]

Question to all expert legal punters out there:
Our current appeal is based on challenging the validity of the process only. If UEFA issue a judgement before that appeal is heard then I assume we will submit a second additional appeal which challenges the UEFA judgement?

I'd expect them not to announce a decision before the CAS rules because it would be embarrassing for them to tell the world they're banning us and then find that they have to reconsider the case from the beginning because the investigation wasn't completed properly. It's certain that we'd go to the CAS to appeal any ban we ended up with. If they did try to impose one while the current CAS proceedings are ongoing, then I assume we can ask the CAS to suspend it pending the resolution of the case (but I have no time now to check the CAS Rules). If UEFA then won the case, we'd appeal again to the CAS at htat stage on the substance of the decision.

 

[Gray]

We should just challenge FFP and the real reason for its introduction.

 

[Centurions]

Can somebody clear up for me whether these emails were leaked or stolen? Thanks!

Is there a difference in real life?

I believe they were stolen.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Agree with this. I follow Chadwick on Twitter because his tweets sometimes contain interesting links. However, I often find his own analysis lacking the authority I'd expect from someone with his qualifications.



With regard to the highlighted part, you may well be right but I personally don't take this as a given. This is mainly because, if it's true, I really don't see our application as making sense in strategic terms. UEFA will have been blindsided by our application to the CAS at this stage, but any concern on their part quickly dissipates if you have only a no-hope case. In fact, putting forward a case that they can effortlessly swat away and that the CAS will haughtily dismiss will simply make UEFA more confident in an "If that's the best they can come up with, we really don't have much to worry about" kind of way. On the other hand, if we put forward a credibly arguable case and UEFA still win, they'll know they've been in a fight and will proceed with a degree of concern.

Moreover, a defeat in a first application to the CAS would be damaging to City in PR terms. Imagine the glee with which our detractors will greet it: they'll be delighted to take the chance to trumpet that the cheats are merely full of bluster and the CAS has seen through us. If we have a significant chance, even if it's fifty-fifty or perhaps as low as one in three, then there's a viable prospect of a significant upside (throwing a spoke in the wheel of UEFA's process) to balance against the risk of the downside. But to accept an inevitable reputational battering when the prospect of the upside is more or less zero? That doesn't make much sense to me.

It's difficult to assess the merits of City's legal arguments without access to information that isn't in the public domain. However, the analysis so far put forward suggests that the Milan case is a decisive precedent. Having read the judgment in that case, I'm not absolutely sure that it will be for three principal reasons:

1. City seem not to be challenging the merits of the decision but the procedure via which it was reached. In Milan's case, the punishment would have been struck out, whereas for us it would remain possible for the IC to begin a new investigation and do it properly this time.
2. In the Milan case, the CAS suggested that it would have had the power to intervene at the stage of the IC referral if that had been necessary to safeguard Milan's interests but it declined to do so because Milan's interests were already sufficiently protected. On the face of it, MCFC's argument for this kind of discretion to be exercised is stronger than Milan's was if there are serious procedural breaches on UEFA's side and if our conduct in timely supplying information and the like has been beyond reproach. After all, in Milan's case the AC was taking a decision based on an investigation whose propriety was unchallenged. That's not the case with us, and we'll argue that, therefore, the AC's decision would inevitably be compromised so they shouldn't be invited to take it given the reputational repercussions for us as a club of an adverse AC decision.
3. Thirdly, I've read that City are also running a further and different argument that there's no case to answer and the decision to initiate an investigation was flawed so should be set aside. The Milan case isn't a precedent with regard to this argument.

So it seems to me that there's the kernel here of some viable legal arguments that could, in the right circumstances, even be quite strong. However, and here's the rub, they can only be convincing if City have extremely compelling evidence of procedural breaches, inherent bias and a lack of proper cause to initiate the investigation in the first place. Many Blue Mooners take it as gospel that we do have such evidence. They're wrong to do so - we simply have no idea of what the evidence is so can't assess its strength. As I wrote previously, to try to do so is a fool's errand.

So maybe I'm wrong about City's strategy. Perhaps for some strange reason they're prepared to go forward with a case that they know they'll undoubtedly lose. And maybe there are other CAS precedents, in cases more similar to City's than Milan's was, suggesting that the CAS will regard the possibility of an appeal against an eventual AC decision as a sufficient safeguard of MCFC's interests. However, so far it's the Milan case that's been put forward as the reason why City's application is likely to fail. It may well fail, of course, but I don't think the position is quite as cut and dried as many others seem to.

Agree with this. I follow Chadwick on Twitter because his tweets sometimes contain interesting links. However, I often find his own analysis lacking the authority I'd expect from someone with his qualifications.



With regard to the highlighted part, you may well be right but I personally don't take this as a given. This is mainly because, if it's true, I really don't see our application as making sense in strategic terms. UEFA will have been blindsided by our application to the CAS at this stage, but any concern on their part quickly dissipates if you have only a no-hope case. In fact, putting forward a case that they can effortlessly swat away and that the CAS will haughtily dismiss will simply make UEFA more confident in an "If that's the best they can come up with, we really don't have much to worry about" kind of way. On the other hand, if we put forward a credibly arguable case and UEFA still win, they'll know they've been in a fight and will proceed with a degree of concern.

Moreover, a defeat in a first application to the CAS would be damaging to City in PR terms. Imagine the glee with which our detractors will greet it: they'll be delighted to take the chance to trumpet that the cheats are merely full of bluster and the CAS has seen through us. If we have a significant chance, even if it's fifty-fifty or perhaps as low as one in three, then there's a viable prospect of a significant upside (throwing a spoke in the wheel of UEFA's process) to balance against the risk of the downside. But to accept an inevitable reputational battering when the prospect of the upside is more or less zero? That doesn't make much sense to me.

It's difficult to assess the merits of City's legal arguments without access to information that isn't in the public domain. However, the analysis so far put forward suggests that the Milan case is a decisive precedent. Having read the judgment in that case, I'm not absolutely sure that it will be for three principal reasons:

1. City seem not to be challenging the merits of the decision but the procedure via which it was reached. In Milan's case, the punishment would have been struck out, whereas for us it would remain possible for the IC to begin a new investigation and do it properly this time.
2. In the Milan case, the CAS suggested that it would have had the power to intervene at the stage of the IC referral if that had been necessary to safeguard Milan's interests but it declined to do so because Milan's interests were already sufficiently protected. On the face of it, MCFC's argument for this kind of discretion to be exercised is stronger than Milan's was if there are serious procedural breaches on UEFA's side and if our conduct in timely supplying information and the like has been beyond reproach. After all, in Milan's case the AC was taking a decision based on an investigation whose propriety was unchallenged. That's not the case with us, and we'll argue that, therefore, the AC's decision would inevitably be compromised so they shouldn't be invited to take it given the reputational repercussions for us as a club of an adverse AC decision.
3. Thirdly, I've read that City are also running a further and different argument that there's no case to answer and the decision to initiate an investigation was flawed so should be set aside. The Milan case isn't a precedent with regard to this argument.

So it seems to me that there's the kernel here of some viable legal arguments that could, in the right circumstances, even be quite strong. However, and here's the rub, they can only be convincing if City have extremely compelling evidence of procedural breaches, inherent bias and a lack of proper cause to initiate the investigation in the first place. Many Blue Mooners take it as gospel that we do have such evidence. They're wrong to do so - we simply have no idea of what the evidence is so can't assess its strength. As I wrote previously, to try to do so is a fool's errand.

So maybe I'm wrong about City's strategy. Perhaps for some strange reason they're prepared to go forward with a case that they know they'll undoubtedly lose. And maybe there are other CAS precedents, in cases more similar to City's than Milan's was, suggesting that the CAS will regard the possibility of an appeal against an eventual AC decision as a sufficient safeguard of MCFC's interests. However, so far it's the Milan case that's been put forward as the reason why City's application is likely to fail. It may well fail, of course, but I don't think the position is quite as cut and dried as many others seem to.

I think City have indicated to friendly journos that the procedural failures include undue haste in the investigate and bias amongst some of the investigators. Maybe the best outcome would be force the investigation to restart but that would be a victory of sorts (albeit a minor one). I sense that it is unlikely but could UEFA be timed out on the five year rule if they had to restart the investigation?

We would need to take a serious PR hit for this appeal not to have been worthwhile because the negative press seem to have gone quiet in recent weeks. For example, Martin Samuel has returned to being more supportive (after he distanced himself from us on FFP after the “leaks”). Also, it might not be very telling evidence but from a PR perspective linking Craig Parry as an investigator to the footage from inside City’s coach for last year’s Champions League Semi Final might be a decent ploy. Liverpool are detested by fans of other Prem Teams after all
Although they have international popularity.

We may (or may not) also be able to evidence bias from the former Prime Minister of Belgium given Khaldoon has focused on him, albeit that might be just because he led the investigation.

There are clearly different ways of looking at the pros and cons and it could backfire. That said, for most of us who are growing weary of the apparently corrupt Champs League, City putting up a legal ad PR fight is a major step forward in its own right.