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

[MillionMilesAway]

Sure I read an article the other day that said even though financial losses were down, debt had risen by about an equal amount

I read that too, I think. Overall debt has increased noticeably.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Once FFP is blown out of the water is there anything to stop city just spending whatever the fuck we want?

Given the unfairness of the big euro clubs making a closed shop I cannot fkin wait to see them whinging all the way back to their corporate American sugar daddies - who will be expecting a return on ANY investment.

It might be 3 or 4 years down the line but in the long term we are healthier, our future is secure.

 

[Gordyola]

The problem you'll have by taking on Leterme is the AC chamber has given a more severe sanction that the one year the IC was said to recommend.

The problem with FFP is they are showing that over the years clubs deficits have shrinked thanks to that regulation. They can thus claim it is for the wider interests of the sport.

Regarding CAS, there was this judgement in 2018, i wonder why it didn't impact the systematic recourse to CAS for an appeal of an UEFA verdict:
https://www.rtbf.be/sport/football/...-arbitral-du-sport-sont-illegales?id=10007518

The Brussels Court of Appeal said in a ruling released on Friday that clauses in the statutes of FIFA, UEFA and the national football federations imposing recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are illegal. This judgment comes within the framework of the litigation opposing the RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports to FIFA and UEFA. Seraing club had been sanctioned by the international football federation for having concluded a TPO (Third Party Ownership) contract with Doyen Sports.


The Brussels Court of Appeal had ordered, last January, the reopening of the proceedings in the case opposing the RFC Seraing and the company Doyen Sports to FIFA, UEFA, the Belgian Football Union and FIFPro, the union world of football players. She wished to obtain additional information concerning the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) before ruling. The Court of Appeal had held that it was necessary to examine the legality of the CAS in the light of European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the legality of the obligation for football clubs to use exclusively at the CAS. The court had said to question in particular the "general prohibition to address the ordinary courts" enacted by FIFA, in the context of disputes between a club and FIFA or UEFA.

After rehearing the parties on this precise point of the dispute, the court considered, in a long reasoned judgment communicated on Friday, that the clauses of the statutes of FIFA, UEFA and the national football federations imposing recourse to the CAS illegal. Thus, the court established that arbitration can only exist on the basis of a true consent of the parties, an arbitration clause can therefore only relate to "a determined legal relationship" according to the European Convention on arbitration of January 20, 1996. Arbitration cannot therefore relate, in general, to all disputes that may arise between federations and a club or a player. According to the Court of Appeal, the arbitration clauses of FIFA, UEFA and its members, and therefore the national football federations, violate this requirement of "determined legal relationship", which "relates to the law access to justice and respect for the will of the parties ", according to the European Court of Human Rights and the Charter of Human Rights of the European Union.
(...)
"The Brussels Court of Appeal gave reasons for its decision in a particularly detailed and particularly detailed manner. This judgment owes nothing to chance. It declares the illegality of the imposition of arbitration set up by the sports federations. which goes far beyond football. This was done on the basis of texts which apply throughout Europe. And therefore, it would be perfectly normal for any other judge in Europe to make the same analysis. instant, this judgment will have a global effect and will impose on the sports federations a new questioning of their operating modes "explains on the microphone of the RTBF Maître Jean-Louis Dupont, famous lawyer at the origin of the judgment Bosman (1995) .

"The Bosman judgment had forced the sports federations to become aware of the existence of the rule of law, continues Mr. Dupont. This judgment and its consequences will no doubt force the federations to finally function genuinely within the Rule of law. "

While recalling that the CAS is financed by the international sports federations, the lawyer concludes not without irony: "When a small club like Seraing comes to the CAS to maintain that a regulation considered by FIFA as strategic is illegal, you can imagine the chances that are Seraing's. "

So if I understand that correctly this clause in using CAS is null and void? If City so choose they don't need to go to CAS

Judicial recourse to the Swiss Federal Tribunal is allowed on a very limited number of grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of elementary procedural rules (e.g. violation of the right to a fair hearing) or incompatibility with public policy.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Doubt it, the lawyers will be strongly advising the club what the PR department should and should not be doing.

That's probably what's rattling the hacks more than anything, seems we've shut the show down for them, and because they're such a self entitled bunch of wankers, they don't like it, so they'll just make shit up, hope that comes back to bite them on the arse big time, personally.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Once FFP is blown out of the water is there anything to stop city just spending whatever the fuck we want?

Given the unfairness of the big euro clubs making a closed shop I cannot fkin wait to see them whinging all the way back to their corporate American sugar daddies - who will be expecting a return on ANY investment.

It might be 3 or 4 years down the line but in the long term we are healthier, our future is secure.

It's not going to be blown out of the water, so it's moot.

 

[mexico1970]

It's not going to be blown out of the water, so it's moot.

That's not as cut and dried as it seems, there is a chance FFP could be scuppered if City win this case.

https://www.football365.com/news/ffp-scuppered-if-man-city-win-uefa-appeal-expert

 

[Tricky_Trev]

A more interesting question IMO is what liability do individuals have?

Yves Leterme is the 1 person the club have accused of inproper conduct. We know from the PSG case that as the head of the IC he has total power, and was able to summarily dismiss the objections of his colleagues without reason.

If he is the single person who has stopped the club from giving their evidence and made his ruling, then he is the single person responsible for all of the reputation damage done by his decision and his reaction to the accusation of leaking was the very definition of protesting too much.

So what exposure to civil or criminal action does he have personally if we get cleared, and he didn't follow the process he was supposed to?

I think the answer is no liability whatsoever.

The UEFA CFCB Procedural Rules state “Members of the CFCB are not liable for any action, decision or failure to act in
connection with proceedings before the CFCB.”

https://it.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Unless there’s a way around that. I’m assuming that means we can sue UEFA as a body, but not specific individuals within the two chambers?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That's not as cut and dried as it seems, there is a chance FFP could be scuppered if City win this case.

https://www.football365.com/news/ffp-scuppered-if-man-city-win-uefa-appeal-expert

Hmm, Chadwick's a name I've heard of for a while so he's a pretty good source.

It might fall apart, but I don't think that's City's goal really, certainly not an immediate one.

 

[mexico1970]

Hmm, Chadwick's a name I've heard of for a while so he's a pretty good source.

It might fall apart, but I don't think that's City's goal really, certainly not an immediate one.

Horse trading will ensue bud, that's my gut feeling anyway.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Was that the guy who feels we should reason with them and, when they spout bollocks such as "City are state owned", we should count to 10 and politely ask them if they could possibly find the time to provide some evidence to back up said bollocks? If so, he's pissing in the wind because soon afterwards Delaney basically accused PB of being wrong after he had provided him with a detailed explanation. As soon as he was asked to say where PB was so mistaken he refused and, as they all usually do, disappeared into Twitter no man's land.

It was nothing to do with PB or Delaney from what I can recall

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Horse trading will ensue bud, that's my gut feeling anyway.

Yes, I've said before that if City win, they'll want a chair at the top table (or something).

 

[Gordyola]

I think the answer is no liability whatsoever.

The UEFA CFCB Procedural Rules state “Members of the CFCB are not liable for any action, decision or failure to act in
connection with proceedings before the CFCB.”

https://it.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Unless there’s a way around that. I’m assuming that means we can sue UEFA as a body, but not specific individuals within the two chambers?

One can sue whoever one wants to, only proviso is deep pockets, any clause is only good once tested in law

 

[Centurions]

Is that indisputable fact? I've never seen it reported as such.

I am relying on arguments here that people like PB have posted.

It's explained here. I am afraid its lengthy but you can probably skim read it to get the idea.

https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/

A slightly easier comparison is from Swiss Ramble.

 

[dickie davies]

Hmmm. 306 posts in 13 years

You should read them before making any raggy accusations

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Whilst we're speculating, I"m interested in this newly-embraced and much-touted concept that the rules may be corrupt but we "signed up to them" so it doesn't matter.

Setting aside the idea that you can compete in football without CL money, I'd love to see the "contract" we "signed" up to. Presumably there is some sort of contractual obligation on UEFA to administer the competition and its processes fairly. Even if there isn"t, it would surely be implicit given the required trust between the parties.

Proven breach of that agreement by UEFA would be an interesting situation given that we know the size of the financial penalties UEFA would like to impose on us. And that's before you start on the other financial implications.

I had this discussion with an Arsenal supporting, intelligent, well-read family member.
I did explain to him that both signatories of an agreement need to comply with it, and UEFA had patently not.
He asked me what I meant by that, and I simply asked him which set of rules applied, that we should adhere to.
Was it the set that assured us of passing in the first place , or the set that applied after we had submitted the accounts that moved the goal-posts to ensure failure, or was it the set that now allows owner investment of the type for which we being accused?
He was a bit shocked - he had no idea of any of this, just like the consumers of the crap now being fed to them. It’s no wonder that people believe the worst about us.

 

[laserblue]

You are conflating the IC and the AC's processes. Even if the IC failed to give any consideration to City's submissions, City had another opportunity to make submissions to the AC. The idea that both refused to consider any submissions made is just not right. In short, we will have to do much much better than that to prevail.

You may be right simply because none of us knows for sure at this stage but I wouldn't put anything past a corrupt process run by a corrupt organisation like UEFA. Just look at some of the reported facts about the bias and corruption involved in the case:

• In December 2018 - three months before the start of the IC investigation - UEFA's Chief Investigator Yves Leterme publicly stated that City would be found guilty and banned from the Champions League. This proves that the case was pre-judged (irrespective of any evidence from City whether read or unread) and is one of City's main grievances in their appeal to CAS.
  
• In a flagrant case of conflict of interest the IC panel included Rick Parry, ex-CEO of Liverpool and self confessed lifelong Liverpool supporter.
• While the investigation was still in progress there were several leaks from someone within UEFA to the New York Times and Associated Press confirming that City would be found guilty and banned. Tariq Panja of the NYT has admitted the leaks came from within UEFA but of course won't name his source.

 

[TFC]

Fuck me, in a shocking twist of events, I see Ewar Woowar has come out in support of UEFA. What a fucking whopper.

 

[nmc]

City did not agree to the change in the way that players contracted prior to 2010 were treated under FFP. We were reporting under the FFP regulations and at he last moment UEFA changed it's own rules.

This is what City mean by context. None of the journalists have presented this argument. That would be balanced. They don't do that.

That unfortunately reflects the present newspaper industry in the UK where proprietors use their newspapers to drive specific messages and themes - facts, balance and truth were sacrificed many years ago. You only had to read Good Times Bad Times by Harold Evans to see the immediate impact Murdoch had at the Times and how he twisted and manipulated the whole organisation. 40 years on I suggest its got a lot worse.

 

[nmc]

You may be right simply because none of us knows for sure at this stage but I wouldn't put anything past a corrupt process run by a corrupt organisation like UEFA. Just look at some of the reported facts about the bias and corruption involved in the case:

• In December 2018 - three months before the start of the IC investigation - UEFA's Chief Investigator Yves Leterme publicly stated that City would be found guilty and banned from the Champions League. This proves that the case was pre-judged (irrespective of any evidence from City whether read or unread) and is one of City's main grievances in their appeal to CAS.
  
• In a flagrant case of conflict of interest the IC panel included Rick Parry, ex-CEO of Liverpool and self confessed lifelong Liverpool supporter.
• While the investigation was still in progress there were several leaks from someone within UEFA to the New York Times and Associated Press confirming that City would be found guilty and banned. Tariq Panja of the NYT has admitted the leaks came from within UEFA but of course won't name his source.

The three points you have made are all material as to why we may not have received a fair hearing - although it is for CAS to decide. Interestingly CAS referred the case back to UEFA and decided not to make a judgement but these three points were still in play but clearly CAS could not rule on whether we’d received a fair hearing until a judgement was passed down. It does look like UEFA think that CAS has dismissed our concerns re the process and issued what can only be seen as an unprecedented sanction. I think the actions and behaviours of UEFA in the last 2 weeks suggest that we have probably not received a fair hearing... the hearing was probably pre judged and some of those on the AC were certainly conflicted and pre disposed to issuing a punishment. I honestly think a decent QC (and we’ve got the best) will rip the process deployed to pieces and may do so in pre case hearings and document exchanges to the extent that UEFA - or at least their lawyers will know the process won’t stand up to scrutiny. For example Freshfields will no doubt be asking for notes of declared conflicts of interests etc at UEFA - asking for all emails from all AC members that make any reference to City or ADUG. There will be a right data search going on and with a cesspit like UEFA it won’t take long for the cracks to appear.

 

[blueparrot]

The three points you have made are all material as to why we may not have received a fair hearing - although it is for CAS to decide. Interestingly CAS referred the case back to UEFA and decided not to make a judgement but these three points were still in play but clearly CAS could not rule on whether we’d received a fair hearing until a judgement was passed down. It does look like UEFA think that CAS has dismissed our concerns re the process and issued what can only be seen as an unprecedented sanction. I think the actions and behaviours of UEFA in the last 2 weeks suggest that we have probably not received a fair hearing... the hearing was probably pre judged and some of those on the AC were certainly conflicted and pre disposed to issuing a punishment. I honestly think a decent QC (and we’ve got the best) will rip the process deployed to pieces and may do so in pre case hearings and document exchanges to the extent that UEFA - or at least their lawyers will know the process won’t stand up to scrutiny. For example Freshfields will no doubt be asking for notes of declared conflicts of interests etc at UEFA - asking for all emails from all AC members that make any reference to City or ADUG. There will be a right data search going on and with a cesspit like UEFA it won’t take long for the cracks to appear.