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

[lancs blue]

Effectively saying that they have evidence that deserves this ban but refusing to disclose this is surely something CAS would be unable to accept if they are truly meaning to find a solution?
The usual compromise of a lesser fine or upholding its severity has gone so what will CAS do, will they dismiss the UEFA verdict totally or give them further time to decide to reveal it under threat of rejecting the verdict totally.
If they reveal their evidence to CAS but not to City is that fair or even if they do reveal it to both ie us and CAS will we be allowed to respond within a reasonable time to what we are charged with?

I can understand UEFA not revealing stuff they feel will form part of an along the line non CAS legal dispute but perhaps they should not have given us a sentence then and should have waited for our legal case to form.

They can't do that, all evidence has to be submitted to CAS and exchanged between the relevant parties.

R44.1 Written Submissions

The proceedings before the Panel comprise written submissions and, in principle, an
oral hearing. Upon receipt of the file and if necessary, the President of the Panel shall
issue directions in connection with the written submissions. As a general rule, there
shall be one statement of claim, one response and, if the circumstances so require, one
reply and one second response. The parties may, in the statement of claim and in the
response, raise claims not contained in the request for arbitration and in the answer to
the request. Thereafter, no party may raise any new claim without the consent of the
other party.
Together with their written submissions, the parties shall produce all written evidence
upon which they intend to rely. After the exchange of the written submissions, the
parties shall not be authorized to produce further written evidence, except by mutual
agreement, or if the Panel so permits, on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Apparently "If you break ze rules you should be punished" from no lesser genius as "Le Professeur" A. Wenger.

What a typically academic and inciteful comment for Talkshite to run with. Journalism at its best.

I read what Wenger said it was hilarious, he started with City bought ALL his players, then he names 4, of which one was out of contract and free, he then goes on about punishing City before saying he does not know the FFP rules, brilliant

 

[SilverFox2]

I might have missed earlier stuff, but why do you think UEFA withheld evidence from City?
That would automatically go badly on appeal.

Did they.not say they would not publish their reasoning if City appealled the sentence?

Perhaps I mistake their statement.

 

[OB1]

I think the trail indicates the money originated from the EC but MAY have been routed through ADUG.
My point is that if this is the case then the routing through ADUG is not just a trivial post box issue.
The result being that we could be in breach of FFP.

We could not be in breach of FFP if the money originated from the EC, regardless of how it was routed. Even if wording in FFP suggested that was some sort of breach, any competent court or arbitration body would look at the substance of the transaction and find in City's favour.

 

[OB1]

Hold nearly a 40 year grudge against Spurs

You are not alone.

 

[SilverFox2]

They can't do that, all evidence has to be submitted to CAS and exchanged between the relevant parties.

R44.1 Written Submissions

The proceedings before the Panel comprise written submissions and, in principle, an
oral hearing. Upon receipt of the file and if necessary, the President of the Panel shall
issue directions in connection with the written submissions. As a general rule, there
shall be one statement of claim, one response and, if the circumstances so require, one
reply and one second response. The parties may, in the statement of claim and in the
response, raise claims not contained in the request for arbitration and in the answer to
the request. Thereafter, no party may raise any new claim without the consent of the
other party.
Together with their written submissions, the parties shall produce all written evidence
upon which they intend to rely. After the exchange of the written submissions, the
parties shall not be authorized to produce further written evidence, except by mutual
agreement, or if the Panel so permits, on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

Thanks.

 

[lancs blue]

Did they.not say they would not publish their reasoning if City appealled the sentence?

Perhaps I mistake their statement.

Wasn't that related to public disclosure of the reasoning, clearly they have to reveal it to CAS and City, anything else would be nonsensical.

 

[waspish]

Either way, someone felt they needed to make the point. But there's two reasons why I don't think it happened that way:
1. It would be monumentally fucking stupid to do so after being explicitly warned not to.
2. UEFA wouldn't have needed to be tipped off by a hacked email 4 years later; they'd have picked it up first time round.

They go through our accounts every season so the leaked emails brought it to there attention and why they have banned us.

 

[SilverFox2]

Wasn't that related to public disclosure of the reasoning, clearly they have to reveal it to CAS and City, anything else would be nonsensical.

Ta.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Did they.not say they would not publish their reasoning if City appealled the sentence?

Perhaps I mistake their statement.

I suspect you have - it's really difficult to organise a defence when you don't know what you're trying to refute!

I think what they meant is that they won't publish their judgement as the case is essentially still ongoing.

 

[laserblue]

He failed to understand the significance of the work PB had done. The lack of understanding about this issue is a shocking indictment of journalistic integrity and thoroughness. It all stems from the blind misconception that the CFG is state-owned. It is not. David Conn seems to think that it is some sort of revelation that an airline that has always been owned by the state, received a cash injection from.... wait for it.... the state. Who else was supposed to meet Etihad's financial commitments, David? The Pope? If you're reading, David, I can give you an exclusive - bears s**t in the woods.

Spot on mate. A government funding its own state owned airline in neither illegal nor unusual. More to the point it doesn't contravene FFP and is fuck all to do with UEFA.

 

[Dubai Blue]

They go through our accounts every season so the leaked emails brought it to there attention and why they have banned us.

That's my point. If £60m of Etihad funding really did go from the EC to ADUG and then to City (as some are suggesting), UEFA would have noticed it at the time.

 

[Fordyboy46]

I read what Wenger said it was hilarious, he started with City bought ALL his players, then he names 4, of which one was out of contract and free, he then goes on about punishing City before saying he does not know the FFP rules, brilliant

Course he's all for City getting punished, suits Arsenal's interests all round in which he still obviously has a vented interest. He's not bothered to look into the case at all, just wants City out of the way, the bitter old ****.

 

[John Wayne]

I suspect you have - it's really difficult to organise a defence when you don't know what you're trying to refute!

I think what they meant is that they won't publish their judgement as the case is essentially still ongoing.

They didn't even publish the charges.

 

[SilverFox2]

I suspect you have - it's really difficult to organise a defence when you don't know what you're trying to refute!

I think what they meant is that they won't publish their judgement as the case is essentially still ongoing.

Apologies, I now understand (at least a little more than I did before recent posts).

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

After the attack on City's players at Anfield the Guardian's Sachin Nakrani wrote about the atmosphere that day and celebrated it in his article:

"Wild, furious, almost feral: from the Kop this felt like a collective triumph". https://www.dumptheguardian.com/foo...sphere-liverpool-fans-anfield-manchester-city

I think City fans can handle criticism. I accept that the press and some football fans regard City as the enemy but I find it difficult to understand that some City fans are still willing to contribute to these publications. The football authorities have declared war on Manchester City. City fans need a military police force to ensure discipline in the ranks! Joking (mostly).

Good find Marvin - and from my recollection, the tone of that article was largely replicated across the bulk of the commentary of the events surrounding that game.

Good old Liverpool fans, creating such a hostile environment for their rivals - they put the shits up City's overpaid prima donnas, and created the atmosphere for their team to triumph. Testament that nothing beats the Kop when they taste blood (and have a pallet full of bricks at their disposal!)

Ignoring the fact that what those 'fans' did that day is actually illegal. Which as far as I'm aware, posting hyperbolic commentary about a football governing body and a bunch of poorly informed and shoddily researched journalists on an internet chatroom is not!

 

[badaz52]

When the club tried to stop the investigation in November and was told by the CAS that UEFA could continue and could use the material that was gained unlawfully, the writing was on the wall. UEFA was always going to reach this decision.

I'm sure it will come out in time but we don't know what other information UEFA have regarding this but I think people are more or less of the same opinion here that City have been teetering on the edge of FFP for some time and may or may not have slipped up. Unless UEFA can prove that SM moved money himself or directly instructed someone in the government to do so to fund his own projects (conflict of interest) UEFA haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[blueinsa]

They go through our accounts every season so the leaked emails brought it to there attention and why they have banned us.

Its being lost in all the hoohaa this fact.

UEFA and the PL where all over us like a rash at this point in time and our accounts and books forensically being scrutinised to ensure we fell within the rules.

They did and because they did we got part of our fine back remember.

UEFA are making such fucking idiots of themselves here over illegally obtained emails that no fucker knows are even legitimate and because certain clubs and individuals are demanding they do it yet they cant see that they have already said our financials at this period in time where fine.

 

[Gordyola]

A member of CAS will look at our appeal and decide weather to uphold the ban or suspend it. This is all based on weather our appeal is likely to be won/or our case has merit. The actual appeal my not be heard for months

Looking at the previous CAS hearing it looks like we have a strong case and the ban will be suspended but you can never second guess what another person may think.

Can you clarify where this information comes from?

My guess would more likely be, if requested CAS will suspend a ban providing that the appeal is not seen as trying to get around the ban and that it would adversely affect the competition if it wasn't suspended , ie it has merit. I don't believe that CAS will look at likely success so if they do suspend the ban then we shouldn't assume that its a sign of likely success

 

[MillionMilesAway]

They didn't even publish the charges.

No real need to, I guess.