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.
nmc said:
I’m sure the City legal team will have asked for forensic evidence of when the said document was produced and details of each amendment. Cases like this can be won and lost in the detail.
Click to expand...
They won't have faked the document or its date. This case won't be turning on details like this
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As they've charged us with failure ot co-operate, then I guess they've got that. We'll see, but my understanding is that the bulk of their evidence is the Der Spiegel stuff.
Click to expand...

Failure to cooperate can probably be justified on the basis that UEFA were leaking stuff left right and centre and many journalists were reporting what our punishment was going to be before the process was complete. Of course journalists can get lucky but what’s the odds of them all guessing the same or similar punishment ? In a legal exchange UEFA will have to square their allegations of non-cooperation with our own assertion that the IC didn’t consider our evidence.
 
BobbyBoy said:
What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.
Click to expand...

In this scenario, there is simply no way City would be as bullish in their public proclamations as they have been.

If we knew what was included in our submissions first time round, and subsequently UEFA asked us to review specific docs which we knew contradicted the originals - and then we provided said docs as requested - there is simply no way our Chairman and CEO would go on public record at the volumes they have since UEFA's charge saying their accusations are entirely baseless, and we have irrefutable proof of our innocence. These guys aren't idiots.
 
nmc said:
Failure to cooperate can probably be justified on the basis that UEFA were leaking stuff left right and centre and many journalists were reporting what our punishment was going to be before the process was complete. Of course journalists can get lucky but what’s the odds of them all guessing the same or similar punishment ? In a legal exchange UEFA will have to square their allegations of non-cooperation with our own assertion that the IC didn’t consider our evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, the no-cooperation charge is a) almost certainly not supportable b) wouldn't give rise to a proper sanction if the underlying charge had no merit.
 
projectriver said:
Worth reminding yourself of what was already settled in 2014 https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league

The idea that City go through that process, disclose documents and then find many years later (and co-incidentally shortly after Football Leaks) that UEFA comes across new documents from City that are so incriminating that they undermine the earlier settlement is simply not credible.
Click to expand...
I suspect this info from Evans is just part of the UEFA disinformation campaign and is probably out-of-date. It all looks a bit desperate to me. I suspect Evans got this information along the lines of a throwaway comment from his source along the lines of: Evans asks: "So what evidence have you got?" reply: "It's not just about the Der Spiegel stuff you know."
There have been leaks from some of those in UEFA or those close to people in UEFA throughout the entire process. They have come from the anti-City faction within UEFA and have been amplified privately to the media by senior people from our commercial rivals. Some of those leaks have been accurate and some of them have been "wishful thinking."
I actually don't blame people like Evans for reporting this leaked information but he is only telling one side of the story.
 
projectriver said:
Thought the Evans article was decent. Clearly getting nothing out of UEFA and he's right about how important it is and the stakes.

I've never seen this as boldly stated "Uefa have insisted from the start that their evidence is not connected with the illegally-obtained Football Leaks material." It remains a mystery what it IS connected with if not those emails.

This is also important "Although the court schedule does not allow enough time for proper, forensic cross-examination of witnesses – a factor that may suit the club – the case will be treated with proper seriousness." If UEFA can't prove their case by inference on what witnesses say, it leaves them having to prove the case on documents. As I have said many times (as has the club), how do you overcome an audited set of accounts without even having witnesses to cross examine.
Click to expand...

That second paragraph almost certainly contradicts UEFAs comments about why they were reopening the investigation. They wholly tied it to the reports in the press.
 
BobbyBoy said:
What about a scenario where UEFA say we have read some concerning items in the media regarding x y and z, can you forward copies of x y and z please? These copies don't match what was originally submitted, bang, UEFA have their smoking gun.
Click to expand...

No they don't. It then becomes a question of which are more reliable, the documents produced by the subject of the enquiry or some hacked emails which have passed through several sets of hands.

Any reasonable Court would give credence to documents with evidenced provenance. Something impossible in the case of the Der Spiegel documents.

Just realised you meant two documents submitted by the club showing different things. Possible at a stretch but highly unlikely.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
I was of the understanding new evidence couldn't be introduced, so how does that sit with them suddenly finding us guilty on something they may already have or we overlooked?

Doesn't make sense, I'd assume we already know what Uefa's entire case is against us?
Click to expand...
This is the one thing that worries me. If Uefa believe that something in the documents that we submitted shows we are guilty, it is not new evidence. In that case, surely Uefa had to tell the club the basis of their finding of guilt when the AC pronounced. I guess that they may have detected creative accounting. No doubt City will say that UEFA have misinterpreted something. Your previous posts suggested that Uefa had only emails as evidence, so I am at a loss, but I distinctly remember Leterme saying the vital evidence was something that City submitted. Can't find a ref to that tho'.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
I was of the understanding new evidence couldn't be introduced, so how does that sit with them suddenly finding us guilty on something they may already have or we overlooked?

Doesn't make sense, I'd assume we already know what Uefa's entire case is against us?
Click to expand...

Don't think that it is correct re no new evidence before CAS.
 
projectriver said:
Don't think that it is correct re no new evidence before CAS.
Click to expand...

Its not correct (https://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/code-procedural-rules.html):

R44 Procedure before the Panel

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.

In their written submissions, the parties shall list the name(s) of any witnesses, whom they intend to call, including a brief summary of their expected testimony, and the name(s) of any experts, stating their area of expertise, and shall state any other evidentiary measure which they request. Any witness statements shall be filed together with the parties’ submissions, unless the President of the Panel decides otherwise.

If a counterclaim and/or jurisdictional objection is filed, the CAS Court Office shall fix a time limit for the Claimant to file an answer to the counterclaim and/or jurisdictional objection.

...

R44.3 Evidentiary Proceedings Ordered by the Panel

A party may request the Panel to order the other party to produce documents in its custody or under its control. The party seeking such production shall demonstrate that such documents are likely to exist and to be relevant.

If it deems it appropriate to supplement the presentations of the parties, the Panel may at any time order the production of additional documents or the examination of witnesses, appoint and hear experts, and proceed with any other procedural step. The Panel may order the parties to contribute to any additional costs related to the hearing of witnesses and experts.
 
Centurions said:
Aren't both sides allowed to submit one piece of extra evidence each, with anymore needing agreement from both sides?
Click to expand...
I think that applies where the parties wish to submit extra evidence after the closure of the submission date. Before that date, they should be allowed to submit whatever they think supports their case, as it is a trial de novo. Lawyers, is that right?
PS EDIT. Just read @projectriver post above. All is now clear.
 
Centurions said:
Why would we submit copies that don't match the original documents?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
If they didn’t match the originals, then they would not be copies, they would be separate different documents.
Why would we send them documents they hadn’t asked for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top