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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
BJL_City said:
You can only work with the material you're given, you only have to watch Four Year Plan for an indication of the shambles QPR have been for the past decade.
Click to expand...
They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!
 
Ric said:
They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but being able to charge £20 k / day is probably somewhat dependant on his reputation for winning cases Pick too many losing ones and his ego and earnings would take a hit.
 
Ric said:
They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!
Click to expand...
It really gets on my fucking nerves when I see people repeating Panick is on 20 grand a day
It's not a small amount of money but his fees are probably about £500+vat an hour
Then he will have a team of people to do all the legwork for him, some of these are probably on £200/£250 an hour plus vat

The 20 grand is for an entire legal team
 
If UEFA win the appeal then the only recourse is the courts for City but the ban would be likely to stand so job done with City financially hamstrung.

If City win it is hard to see the endgame. If on a technicality then the mud will have stuck requiring a separate initiative to clear our name. Will City dish the dirt?

If UEFA are shown to be in the wrong with their allegations then that opens another can of worms. So far City has been accommodating to preserve the integrity of competitions so as not to kill the golden goose. Now we have a confrontational and personal scenario.

I see the G14 as believing they have a win win position whatever the outcome. Either City is punished or UEFA takes the rap leaving the G14 free to set up their own organisation and competitions. The position of FIFA is key because UEFA are affiliated to them and players operating outside the official structure will not be eligible to play in Internationals.

So many potential twists and turns, mainly in the hands of City. No wonder Khaldoon talked about spending £30 on lawyers rather than accept being compromised on a case they thought was closed. It looks like UEFA’s last throw of the dice and hard to see what else they can do?
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Indeed, for that kind of money, as well as being cleared, we should also be getting
UEFA dissolved.
Click to expand...

Forget Pannick we need Massingbird.

Blackadder:
I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Massingbird not only got him off; he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List. And the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket!

Perkins:
I hear he's a dab hand at the prosecution as well, sir.

Blackadder:
Yes, well, look at Oscar Wilde.

Perkins:
Ol' butch Oscar.

Blackadder:
Yep! Big, bearded, bonking, butch Oscar. The terror of the ladies. 114 illegitimate children, world heavyweight boxing champion and author of the best-selling pamphlet "Why I Like To Do It With Girls." And Massingbird had him sent down for being a whoopsie.
 
BJL_City said:
You can only work with the material you're given, you only have to watch Four Year Plan for an indication of the shambles QPR have been for the past decade.
Click to expand...

What happened at QPR should be a warning to Newcastle if they don't appoint the proper football people at the club it will all end in tears.
 
Ric said:
Pannick does seem to have an excellent reputation, although it’s worth noting that he previously lost a FFP case when representing QPR in 2018:
https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/queens-park-rangers-v-english-football-league/
Click to expand...
All depends on what you mean by 'lost'. He was challenging the whole concept of FFP being unlawful which was highly unlikely to ever fly (similarly, anyone expecting FFP to be thrown out at CAS will be similarly disappointed). What he did achieve was a reduction in the fine, which was described at arbitration as 'not disproportiate', from £41M to £17M, following QPR's decision to lodge an appeal (which was subsequently withdrawn).

I prefer to look at the following:
“It was the Supreme Court case of the year, if not the decade; so naturally enough, the country’s best-known Supreme Court advocate was at the centre of it.
Having already come to intense public notice in the Article 50 case in January 2017, it was inevitable that Lord Pannick QC would be back in action for Miller 2. Miller’s original judicial review application was initially rejected in the High Court, but in a high-tension hearing viewed by 4.4 million people online, Pannick – with his strikingly relaxed and intimate delivery – persuaded the 11-strong panel that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks should be ruled unlawful.
While Pannick has reached quasi-celebrity status for public law cases, he has continued to be seriously in demand on commercial work, such as the Morrisons data protection case and the Box Clever pensions dispute.
In PrivatBank v Kolomoisky, Pannick – instructed by Hogan Lovells – successfully acted for PrivatBank when the court upheld a freeze on the assets of two Ukrainian oligarchs. The Lawyer’s 2017 Barrister of the Year makes a deserved return to the spotlight in 2020.”
 
lancs blue said:
UEFA's Disciplinary Regs page 13 contains this comment about the time limitations :

The statute of limitations set out above is interrupted by all procedural acts, starting afresh with each interruption.

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFile...CompDisCases/02/60/83/56/2608356_DOWNLOAD.pdf

This seems to imply that UEFA have until 16 May 2024 to instigate further proceedings based on the pre-2014 accounts, assuming their current proceedings are not time-barred. Have I interpreted that correctly?

In the CAS judgement document on our initial appeal City's presentation made a point to mention the alleged time-barred aspect of UEFA's proceedings but in their response UEFA made no mention of it and made no effort to refute City's claim, focusing almost exclusively on the technical point that the appeal was inadmissible because UEFA had not yet completed their own proceedings. I wonder if the time-barred angle will be revisited by City in the forthcoming hearing?
Click to expand...
Those regulations specifically exclude CFCB matters. Article 2. So CFCB rules take precedence.
 
dickie davies said:
It really gets on my fucking nerves when I see people repeating Panick is on 20 grand a day
It's not a small amount of money but his fees are probably about £500+vat an hour
Then he will have a team of people to do all the legwork for him, some of these are probably on £200/£250 an hour plus vat

The 20 grand is for an entire legal team
Click to expand...
A leading commercial silk can demand a daily refresher of around that sum (£20k). I know Pannick doesn’t quite fit in that mould, but it’s certainly analogous. The more money that’s on the line, the more the brief will command. Stands to reason. Moreover, the quoted sum might be a conflation of his brief fee and daily refresher divided by the estimated number of days he’ll spend on the case.


Either way, fwiw, it doesn’t seem outlandish to me.
 
Ric said:
They’re two completely different cases, of course. I was just responding to the suggestion that Pannick even taking on the case should be a cause for optimism. At £20k a day, he probably doesn’t give a fuck about our chances either way!
Click to expand...

I guess, though we are asking him to do something less over-reaching than QPR's crusade against FFP. From what I've watched he seems good at picking at particular points which I think will suit the procedural aspect of CAS. I'm also of the view that the owners of QPR are the sort to hire him because he's Pannick, whereas we operate in higher circles and will have done proper due diligence based on what we have to present as to who should represent us.

His professional pride, and lure of repeat business from the UAE, are enough of a motivation.
 
117 M34 said:
I imagine UEFA have an equally reputable person representing them and haven't gone for a no win no fee lawyer so i don't think we can read too much into this
Click to expand...
Yes. If it looks like an interesting and potentially winnable case, that is enough to attract Pannick.
Remember, even the best lose half their cases.
 
spiny said:
If UEFA win the appeal then the only recourse is the courts for City but the ban would be likely to stand so job done with City financially hamstrung.

If City win it is hard to see the endgame. If on a technicality then the mud will have stuck requiring a separate initiative to clear our name. Will City dish the dirt?

If UEFA are shown to be in the wrong with their allegations then that opens another can of worms. So far City has been accommodating to preserve the integrity of competitions so as not to kill the golden goose. Now we have a confrontational and personal scenario.

I see the G14 as believing they have a win win position whatever the outcome. Either City is punished or UEFA takes the rap leaving the G14 free to set up their own organisation and competitions. The position of FIFA is key because UEFA are affiliated to them and players operating outside the official structure will not be eligible to play in Internationals.

So many potential twists and turns, mainly in the hands of City. No wonder Khaldoon talked about spending £30 on lawyers rather than accept being compromised on a case they thought was closed. It looks like UEFA’s last throw of the dice and hard to see what else they can do?
Click to expand...

If we are only spending £30 on lawyers then we are fucked in my view. Even @Two Gun Bob wouldn't get out of bed for that fee.
 
Swing o meter needed again today
ofAXGFz.gif
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
A leading commercial silk can demand a daily refresher of around that sum (£20k). I know Pannick doesn’t quite fit in that mould, but it’s certainly analogous. The more money that’s on the line, the more the brief will command. Stands to reason. Moreover, the quoted sum might be a conflation of his brief fee and daily refresher divided by the estimated number of days he’ll spend on the case.


Either way, fwiw, it doesn’t seem outlandish to me.
Click to expand...
According to Ringrose: "Court documents show Pannick charged £407,250 for a defence involving a two-day trial, which he did not attend. His colleague Monica Carss-Frisk QC, who did appear, also put in a fee for £228,150". Which is nice...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top