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.
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...
CAS can take more time if they think it's needed. Perhaps, having reviewed the submissions, they think UEFA's case will collapse quickly. Well, I can dream, can't I?
 
KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was saying it could not be the case that they could not just look at procedure because of my above explanation in which CAS decide we are right but have to side with UEFA if they followed procedure and to extend it further it would mean nowhere to go with appeal ( well maybe Swiss or EU court ) to the poster who said that they could only look at procedure a few pages back
 
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...

Yes, and I think, as well, that there is no point in the IC and AC at all unless it's to smear a club against whom they fear/know they have no real case.
 
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...

At least 2 1/2 more days to consider the case than UEFA afforded it.
 
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...

Presumably there will have been some questioning and clarifying of questions beforehand to shortcut the actual hearing. All the evidence that is relevant to the charges should have been submitted already.

There's also no need for legal precedent (cases involving UEFA, yes, but not really points of law for much of it), no witnesses to be called. If three days isn't enough to put City's case on the points of note, they're making it more complicated than it should be.
 
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...

The CAS President is Mr Manfred Nan?

Let's hope City aren't blinded by the light and up the junction!
 
WRicko said:
I was saying it could not be the case that they could not just look at procedure because of my above explanation in which CAS decide we are right but have to side with UEFA if they followed procedure and to extend it further it would mean nowhere to go with appeal ( well maybe Swiss or EU court ) to the poster who said that they could only look at procedure a few pages back
Click to expand...
It was said in a blog referenced recently in this very thread, that Lord Pannick has the ability to take complex legal arguments and translate them into understandable every day language. However, I think even he would struggle with this random assembly of words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top