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

[bobbyowenquiff]

This is true. And it's, let's say, not wholly unknown for UEFA to act in the way that City have already publicly accused them of. I suspect we're likely to have put together an impressive case, but it still remains conjecture. :)

The published statement from City which essentially suggested that someone within UEFA was campaigning against us was very strong and Khaldoon's later attack on Tebas was equally strong. I suspect City have been carrying out their own investigations for a long time and know (as Khaldoon said) who has been leaking information and privately briefing the media and who is acting against us within the UEFA ranks. I would be surprised if we don't have a "smoking gun" of evidence. Let's wait and see.

 

[Centurions]

We have lodge a case with CAS, just in case we should get a ban from the bosses of UEFA. Therefore making the appeal a lot quicker with CAS., should UEFA come out that there will not be a ban we will withdraw the case straight away. All this is just guess work on my side, however the judges decision should be out sooner or later, providing football leaks don't hack into UEFA and publish it's findings 1st, before we find out from UEFA.

You're going to surprise a lot of people with that statement.

 

[petrusha]

While we have a couple of the legal eagles in at the moment, can I ask one other, probably naive question.
Regarding the MOU that David Conn (I think it was), inferred rendered going beyond CAS out of the question. Is this something that is signed every season or is it something we signed up for on first entry into uefa competitions.
Probably naive as I say, but if the rules we signed up to abide by have been changed since we've agreed, would it not render the MOU useless?

Yes, it's updated every few years. Most of the text remains the same, though, and the provisions that Castles* quoted appeared in the 2015 version (the numbering had changed but hte substance was the same word for word). On the face of it, we're bound by the provisions and there's not much chance we could quit the ECA and argue that its memorandum doesn't apply to us. It's a Swiss law document and we're going to be reliant on finding doctrines under Swiss law that allow us to wriggle out of it. You can be confident that we have absolutely top Swiss lawyers in our corner, and if ttere's a way, they'll find it.

* - It was Castles, not Conn.

The published statement from City which essentially suggested that someone within UEFA was campaigning against us was very strong and Khaldoon's later attack on Tebas was equally strong. I suspect City have been carrying out their own investigations for a long time and know (as Khaldoon said) who has been leaking information and privately briefing the media and who is acting against us within the UEFA ranks. I would be surprised if we don't have a "smoking gun" of evidence. Let's wait and see.

I hope so and also think it's likely given the way he spoke, but as you say we just have to wait and see.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Yes, it's updated every few years. Most of the text remains the same, though, and the provisions that Castles* quoted appeared in the 2015 version (the numbering had changed but hte substance was the same word for word). On the face of it, we're bound by the provisions and there's not much chance we could quit the ECA and argue that its memorandum doesn't apply to us. It's a Swiss law document and we're going to be reliant on finding doctrines under Swiss law that allow us to wriggle out of it. You can be confident that we have absolutely top Swiss lawyers in our corner, and if ttere's a way, they'll find it.

* - It was Castles, not Conn.



I hope so and also think it's likely given the way he spoke, but as you say we just have to wait and see.

Thanks again to yourself BsHR and MMA.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Thanks @petrusha again for your insight .

As the timeline for 'doing' us was so tight isn't making UEFA start again with another 68 days a bit of a "cheat" as they could already have started the process in anticipation of being told to do so? In effect moving the goal posts?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Thanks again to yourself BsHR and MMA.

Bit harsh that you’re not thanking King KDB of Belgium for his useful contribution.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Bit harsh that you’re not thanking King KDB of Belgium for his useful contribution.

If you were to get around to everyone, it would be like the Oscar speeches.

 

[nmc]

If you were to get around to everyone, it would be like the Oscar speeches.

I think he was being ‘tongue in cheek’.

 

[petrusha]

Thanks @petrusha again for your insight .

As the timeline for 'doing' us was so tight isn't making UEFA start again with another 68 days a bit of a "cheat" as they could already have started the process in anticipation of being told to do so? In effect moving the goal posts?

I've got the bit between my teeth now. Probably posted more in the last week than in about the last three years put together.

As for them being able to 'cheat' and pursue the process now so that they have more time in any second investigation than they had in the first, no doubt we'll be arguing that this is one of the reasons why the process is now compromised and impossible to complete fairly. The danger for us is that the CAS may think that we have an eventual appeal against any second verdict on the merits, which sufficiently safeguards our interests and allows us to be punished if there is evidence of wrongdoing.

A further point occurs to me. If we indeed are arguing that there's no case to answer so the investigation should be set aside in its entirety (which I discussed in my first email this morning), it doesn't seem to me to be all that likely to prevail. However, if we present this argument convincingly, maybe we can persuade the CAS that, should they not send the case back for a new investigation, they aren't going to assist us in getting off when an investigation is nonetheless merited.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Succinctly and perspicuously put.

He can’t spell ‘principle’ though.