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.
KS55 said:
Eh??
If Uefa rule that we did not infringe FFP, that is the end of it, irrespective of procedural issues.
A separate line of defence may be that Uefa did not follow the correct procedure. If we won that argument, but were found to have infringed FFP, then CAS may give a whole range if judgements from
1) the failure of procedure was so great that the punishment is set aside to
2) the failure of procedure did not substantially infringe our rights, so the punishment stands.
3) plus everything in between, eg a lesser punishment, because our rights were infringed to a certain extent.
Edit PS. There is also the nightmare scenario in which CAS order Uefa to rehear the case, this time obseving correct procedure.
Click to expand...

What I mean is if CAS can only deal with procedure lets say UEFA have looked at all the evidence and done so in the correct timescale and think we are guilty then even if CAS think we are innocent then they cannot clear us because procedure was followed that clearly make no sense.

Its not entirely clear what evidence is against us and what evidence we have or even what we are supposed to have done wrong. However it seems that we are alleged to have received money from a related party and that money might be of an inflated amount. Thats not what our accounts have shown or what UEFA have ever said before tho they did want to. So our view the view of the auditors is different to that of UEFA so its subjective or at least vague or open to interpritation. If CAS can only look at process then they could think we are on to a winner in relation to our evidence about related party and values etc but judge that UEFA have followed due process and therefore find us guilty because they can only look at process not facts values of sponsorship related party etc. Even if they can look at more than process do they have the capabilities to look at sponsorship values and related party ? I seems very complex specialist time consuming no really sport or even sports governance related.
 
KS55 said:
The AC has the power to call for more evidence over and above that provided by the IC.
Click to expand...

It absolutely does but that should not be a substitute for the IC handing the AC a complete and comprehensive investigation. There’s a reason why UEFA separate roles between an IC and an AC and each chamber should complete its own function. What probably happened in our case was that the IC did next to nothing and the AC performed the function of both the IC and the AC. It’s a bit like the police not having time to conduct a proper investigation and making an incomplete application to the CPS but the CPS saying don’t worry we’ll pull the evidence together during the court proceedings.
 
Last edited:
WRicko said:
What I mean is if CAS can only deal with procedure lets say UEFA have looked at all the evidence and done so in the correct timescale and think we are guilty then even if CAS think we are innocent then they cannot clear us because procedure was followed that clearly make no sense.

Its not entirely clear what evidence is against us and what evidence we have or even what we are supposed to have done wrong. However it seems that we are alleged to have received money from a related party and that money might be of an inflated amount. Thats not what our accounts have shown or what UEFA have ever said before tho they did want to. So our view the view of the auditors is different to that of UEFA so its subjective or at least vague or open to interpritation. If CAS can only look at process then they could think we are on to a winner in relation to our evidence about related party and values etc but judge that UEFA have followed due process and therefore find us guilty because they can only look at process not facts values of sponsorship related party etc. Even if they can look at more than process do they have the capabilities to look at sponsorship values and related party ? I seems very complex specialist time consuming no really sport or even sports governance related.
Click to expand...

All of this discussion of procedure is wrong. Ignore the procedure at earlier stages - this is like a new trial of the "law" and the facts
 
Silva2Aguero said:
First time poster. Season ticket holder and long time reader.

We are in very very very good hands for this appeal. Obviously the stakes are high, but we have the best possible representation and that puts us in a great position. We effectively have the legal equivalent of a Vincent Kompany and Sergio Aguero combination to take on UEFA, and I hope we take it to them with gusto!

I have published an article expanding on this in more detail if anyone is interested -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manchester-city-fc-vs-uefa-most-important-case-millennium-joshua-levy
Click to expand...

Thanks for that mate but I have an issue with one of the comments :-

" while seemingly rewarding owners such as those of our friends in Salford for saddling their club with debt " ;-)
 
I am hoping that CAS, will tell UEFA if you have based all your evidence of City's guilt on these stolen/hacked e-mails. That CAS will kick it out on the first day. Then tell UEFA that they cannot do anything to us based on these e-mails, and that all evidence from seasons 2011/12 to 2019/20 will not be able to be used ever again.

Thus giving us a clean slate. Then it will be time to go after the bad guys, and get as much money out of them as we can.
 
If you break down the written submissions City made at CAS 1 (https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf p14) you can see the likely main strands of argument at CAS 2:

a) ...the Investigation conducted by [UEFA] was not conducted in accordance with procedural fairness and due process and was contrary to legitimate expectations; IRRELEVANT NOW AS CAS IS A DE NOVO TRIAL
(b) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being periods covered by the 2014 Settlement Agreement; A KEY ISSUE
(c) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of any time prior to 16 May 2014 being five years prior to the date of the Referral Decision; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(d) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches of the [UEFA CL&FFPR] in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being outside of the current monitoring period; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(e) a declaration that the Swiss law personality rights of the Appellant have been violated by the Leaks and that Respondent is responsible for such violation; LARGELY IRRELEVANT

Win on b,c and/or d and the case appears to collapse. Lose on those and the case will be judged on the factual merits. I do believe UEFA will need to do more than wave the Pearce "we can do what we want" email extract around.
 
I am interested in what projectriver posted because it seems to have a clear connection to the club statement in response to the AC's decision and in particular the club's insistence that it had "always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process". There has been much soul searching on here as to what evidence UEFA could have. This has sometimes gone to the lengths of hand wringing and cries of, "they must 'ave some'at or why 'ave they 'ave they banned us?" We are led to believe that they have "some" copies of redacted emails with mysterious references to "HH" and that's all. This would seem to be well short of what is required to secure anything like a "conviction". But if this is not about securing a "conviction" but is actually, as we have always thought, part of an anti-City smear campaign supported strongly by those within UEFA whose loyalties really lie elsewhere and those in the IC and AC of questionable values, this process has already had the press dogs and others baying for our blood for 18 months. And City have no recourse - CAS will uphold our appeal, but there'll be no damage done, no damages. But I do hope that if such is the case Lord Pannick makes an awful mess of FFP and some UEFA officials (and some of their allies at other clubs) in a higher court.
 
BluessinceHydeRoad, that's what I hope for also. Then also dig up as much dirt that we can and present it in court. That this trial be UEFA was just a way to stop us in are tracts and was instigated to throw dirt even if those that informed UEFA about us knew that they were just lying in everything they said.
 
nmc said:
It absolutely does but that should not be a substitute for the IC handing the AC a complete and comprehensive investigation. There’s a reason why UEFA separate roles between an IC and an AC and each chamber should complete its own function. What probably happened in our case was that the IC did next to nothing and the AC performed the function of both the IC and the AC. It’s a bit like the police not having time to conduct a proper investigation and making an incomplete application to the CPS but the CPS saying don’t worry we’ll pull the evidence together during the court proceedings.
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that. Nice analogy of CPS.
 
WRicko said:
What I mean is if CAS can only deal with procedure lets say UEFA have looked at all the evidence and done so in the correct timescale and think we are guilty then even if CAS think we are innocent then they cannot clear us because procedure was followed that clearly make no sense.

Its not entirely clear what evidence is against us and what evidence we have or even what we are supposed to have done wrong. However it seems that we are alleged to have received money from a related party and that money might be of an inflated amount. Thats not what our accounts have shown or what UEFA have ever said before tho they did want to. So our view the view of the auditors is different to that of UEFA so its subjective or at least vague or open to interpritation. If CAS can only look at process then they could think we are on to a winner in relation to our evidence about related party and values etc but judge that UEFA have followed due process and therefore find us guilty because they can only look at process not facts values of sponsorship related party etc. Even if they can look at more than process do they have the capabilities to look at sponsorship values and related party ? I seems very complex specialist time consuming no really sport or even sports governance related.
Click to expand...
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. CAS absolutely can examine all matters of fact and law, so there is no danger of process overriding the facts. See CAS rule 57.
 
projectriver said:
If you break down the written submissions City made at CAS 1 (https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf p14) you can see the likely main strands of argument at CAS 2:

a) ...the Investigation conducted by [UEFA] was not conducted in accordance with procedural fairness and due process and was contrary to legitimate expectations; IRRELEVANT NOW AS CAS IS A DE NOVO TRIAL
(b) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being periods covered by the 2014 Settlement Agreement; A KEY ISSUE
(c) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches in respect of any time prior to 16 May 2014 being five years prior to the date of the Referral Decision; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(d) [UEFA] is not entitled to make any determination or to allege any breaches of the [UEFA CL&FFPR] in respect of periods prior to the reporting period 2016-17, being outside of the current monitoring period; ANOTHER KEY ISSUE
(e) a declaration that the Swiss law personality rights of the Appellant have been violated by the Leaks and that Respondent is responsible for such violation; LARGELY IRRELEVANT

Win on b,c and/or d and the case appears to collapse. Lose on those and the case will be judged on the factual merits. I do believe UEFA will need to do more than wave the Pearce "we can do what we want" email extract around.
Click to expand...

If this a “de novo” trial, how on Earth is it acceptable to only afford it a 3 day time slot, and particularly if it’s being done by video link (NB: I don’t know if it is or it isn’t by the way) with all the room for confusion and IT glitches that that might entail? Surely City would need all of that time to put their side alone?
 
Is there any solid knowledge out there that UEFA have access to more than the hacked documents? As much as I would love them to, I can’t see that they would fight back in CAS based upon those documents.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
If this a “de novo” trial, how on Earth is it acceptable to only afford it a 3 day time slot, and particularly if it’s being done by video link (NB: I don’t know if it is or it isn’t by the way) with all the room for confusion and IT glitches that that might entail? Surely City would need all of that time to put their side alone?
Click to expand...

Thats life I guess. CAS "trials" (really hearings) are usually a lot shorter. And much of this will be considered based on written submissions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top