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

[Exeter Blue I am here]

In that case, would someone like Pannick still be willing to go into bat (if the submissions of Uefa are not a good look for us) or more likely, there would be advisement from our counsel to settle before tomorrow.

Does bluffing and bartering really go on right until the moment a judge sits?

Obviously, on the flip side, Uefa will now have a fair idea where they stand (they are more constrained by the lobbying from other clubs)

If Pannick has pulled the plug on the basis you suggest, then it raises serious questions regarding the irrefutability of our irrefutable evidence......

 

[Delboy352]

Think we'll be exonerated because of dubious, biased and unsound process, evidence being ignored and double jeopardy (2017 settlement).
Wouldn't be surprised though if CAS kicked the case back to UEFA and City to sort out.

Wouldn’t the “5 year time limit” bar UEFA looking at the case again if it was kicked back to them??

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

If Pannick has pulled the plug on the basis you suggest, then it raises serious questions regarding the irrefutability of our irrefutable evidence......

Or maybe he is needed elsewhere, where the case is not so stable ?

 

[bakerdave76]

Its been done by video link

Can we get lfc to hack it for us ..

 

[bluemanchester]

In that case, would someone like Pannick still be willing to go into bat (if the submissions of Uefa are not a good look for us) or more likely, there would be advisement from our counsel to settle before tomorrow.

Does bluffing and bartering really go on right until the moment a judge sits?

Obviously, on the flip side, Uefa will now have a fair idea where they stand (they are more constrained by the lobbying from other clubs)

Bartering goes on even when the judge sits and the case starts. I was involved in a land case in Ireland, whose laws are more or less the same as English law. The other side were desperate not to go before the judge, so weak was their argument, but the ego of the defendant would not give in till he had to. He wouldn't come into court, the judge gave him a 15 minute break after which he was still trying to cut a cheap deal. The judge came back in, he had not appeared, unprecedented I was told, he was given a further 15 minutes and told the case would go against him after that. Lo and behold he came up with the money. So yes a deal could be struck on Monday Tuesday or Wednesdsy even after all the evidence has been heard in my opinion, and that would not surprise me.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

The counter argument to that is why would City maybe wish to telegraph their counsel, who does it serve anyhow, outside of some gossip in the trade press and on here?

There is zero reason for City not to disclose who is representing us, again there would be zero reason for City to let it be widely circulated someone is representing us who is not, it will be reported as weakness and the usual prìcks in the press will report it as so.

No use really speculating until it is confirmed that Pannick is not taking the case, so hoping it is just a rumour.

I personally think it is a blow if he is not, but as someone said earlier the case may not need him and hopefully as you state Khaldoon is completely confident we will be totally cleared of all this búllshit.

As said many many times FFP is complete and utter bollocks and IMO its legality is the only thing that should be involving a court case tomorrow.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

All the preview articles published in the last 24 hours, trade press, and otherwise, have stated that Lord Pannick is leading our defence. So if this rumour is true there will certainly be another media shitstorm over it. I hope it isn't true but nothing about this endless saga would surprise me.

 

[Akpowell]

Pannick's also an Arsenal fan I believe. And so is Phillipe Sands QC one of the regular judges at CAS. Joking aside, I do worry judge's football allegiances (which we know are uniquely deep seated) may jaundice deliberations.

Thats not what we wanted

 

[franksinatra]

If we do lose and the ban us upheld, i can't see how the PL can't not then be obliged to look again at any informatiom we submitted for their own version of financial play. It may be that we ars absolutely fine even with the worst case interpretation of the accounts, as the thresholds ste different, and it is all over. But if the outcome even insinuates that we deliberately mislead anyone then there will be some serious accusations to deal with, domestically, never mind in switzerland. And i struggle to imagine one will wait for the outcone if the other, we'll be stretched fighting all it in all sides.

It was reported that If the verdict is upheld by CAS, City would fall foul of Section J7 of the Premiership regulations which deals with clubs ‘Making false statements in connection with applying for a European club licence’.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

TH, having worked for a solicitor previously you would not believe the amount of times things get settled on the court steps

Very true but I would imagine it’s more difficult where opposing Counsel won’t have any real face to face discussions as everything will be on video link.

 

[slbsn]

Very true but I would imagine it’s more difficult where opposing Counsel won’t have any real face to face discussions as everything will be on video link.

Wont make any difference. Those sort of discussions are often not face to face and often not counsel to counsel.

 

[BuryBlue1977]

Think it’s important to remember that Pannick was just part of a huge legal team representing City. He’s the most high profile member but we have an army of lawyers on this case, of which he is just one of them.


Lord Pannick is one of Britain’s leading barristers who acted for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller in a successful move to overturn Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament last year. He will be supported by leading lawyers from London-based law firm Clifford Chance while fellow “Magic Circle” firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer will instruct Mr Harris. Switzerland’s Kellerhals Carrard is also involved

 

[bluemanchester]

Think it’s important to remember that Pannick was just part of a huge legal team representing City. He’s the most high profile member but we have an army of lawyers on this case, of which he is just one of them.


Lord Pannick is one of Britain’s leading barristers who acted for anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller in a successful move to overturn Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament last year. He will be supported by leading lawyers from London-based law firm Clifford Chance while fellow “Magic Circle” firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer will instruct Mr Harris. Switzerland’s Kellerhals Carrard is also involved

I presume you consider none of those are lightweight so I will go with your reasoning. Come on City.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

General point. Neither side really wants to go to CAS (whatever City say). If City's advice was anything but confident and strong, they would have found a way to settle this matter (today if need be). That is not to say the advice is "you will win" but it must be advice that they should have the best of the arguments. I'm pretty sure UEFA would happily take a one year ban - if we really thought we were likely to lose, I think we would take it.

Presumably any settlement today would still need to go through the CAS process now, even if just to formally offer it..
The punishment has been levied, and undoing it to change it would be difficult, wouldn't it?

Your point about confident or settle makes sense to me. Is it likely that both sides can be truly confident?

 

[slbsn]

Presumably any settlement today would still need to go through the CAS process now, even if just to formally offer it..
The punishment has been levied, and undoing it to change it would be difficult, wouldn't it?

Your point about confident or settle makes sense to me. Is it likely that both sides can be truly confident?

No CAS could be abandoned at any time. Yes both sides can be confident.

 

[BuryBlue1977]

I presume you consider none of those are lightweight so I will go with your reasoning. Come on City.

They’re all heavyweights and that includes Uefa’s team as well. They’ve got some high profile legal eagles working for them. The notion that this will be a piece of piss is quite frankly wishful thinking. I do believe that we have a good case but like everyone else without seeing the evidence from both sides we are all just guessing. No outcome would surprise me, just hoping for the best

 

[bluemanchester]

They’re all heavyweights and that includes Uefa’s team as well. They’ve got some high profile legal eagles working for them. The notion that this will be a piece of piss is quite frankly wishful thinking. I do believe that we have a good case but like everyone else without seeing the evidence from both sides we are all just guessing. No outcome would surprise me, just hoping for the best

"just hoping for the best"
Each and everyone of us.

 

[City_Sean]

Mike Mcgrath is normally pretty good on City stuff:

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I have just read the FT column and it is a bit all over the place. However, one of the comment pieces (by someone going by the name ROXYJ), stood out for me. I have appended the comment(s) below and the full FT piece is here available on this link: https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e

"This is a silly article. First of all it shows UEFA are still leaking, despite the rules of CAS. "A person with knowledge of the governing body's investigations...". How is David by the way? Not seen him for a couple of years.
Second, this is not about the future of FFP at all. FFP is about the poorest way of overseeing financial sustainability imaginable but the rules are still there and still being applied. This is about something that happened 7 years ago, that City have already been punished for. The first major legal questions that CAS will have to decide is whther UEFA, under its own 5-year Statute of Limitations or the terms 2014 Settlement Agrement concluded as part of that original breach, even had the right to re-open the case at all. I know a very experience commercial lawyer who believes they are likely to lose on one or both of these grounds alone. You've never even mentioned this in the article.

Third, there is clear evidence in the public domain, deposited as part of the Open Skies case brought in the USA against the three Gulf airlines (including Etihad) that the airline was liberally funded by the Abu Dhabi Government. You've probably covered that case in this very paper. There's even a leaked presentation, which was prepared for the Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed by consultants Booz Allen, which states specifically that the Executive Council was funding the Etihad sponsorship of Manchester City. That was back in 2010-2011. As long as the money isn't coming from the owner himself, Sheikh Mansour via ADUG, then there is simply no breach of FFP rules. Where Etihad got the money from is only a problem if it came from the owner as disuguised equity investment. Even then, if Eithad is deemed to be a related party (as UEFA appeared to be trying to claim) then it's OK as long as the sponsorship is considered to be "fair value", which is what a non-related party might pay for it.

Another point I'm sure City will make is about the behaviour of the Chief Investigator, Yves Leterme, in a similar case involving PSG. They reported significant sponsorship revenue (>€100m per annum from Qatari sources who were definitely related parties. Leterme had a third-party brand valuation consultancy, Octagon, look at this and they reckoned it was worth just a few million Euros, so less than 10% of what PSG were claiming. That valuation meant that PSG would have failed FFP for a second time and faced a severe sanctions regime. Yet Leterme allowed PSG to appoint their own consultants (Nielsen) who valued it at €100m., which was over 10 times what Octagon had valued it. That meant PSG just passed the FFP test and Leterme waved that through to the higher Adjudicatory Chamber without quiblle and without consulting any of his CFCB colleages. They were outraged and demanded the case was re-opened. Yet because it was referred back to the Investigatory Chamber after a 10-day limit, it couldn't be and this decision was upheld at CAS when PSG appealed. So CAS take time limits very seriously and I'm sure they will in this case."

As for the emails:
"They show what Der Spiegel wanted to show. So, for example, there's an email to Simon Pearce from a finance person at City or CFG that asks if ADUG (Sheikh Mansour's company) is the source of the funds. Yet Der Spiegel didn't show Pearce's reply. If that had confirmed ADUG as the surce of funds then that's probably a smoking gun, yet Der Spiegel didn't print it. Maybe that reply said "ADUG don't get involved in this as they're a related party" or something similar.

I've spoke to two respected media commentators on football finance matters, one of whom has no love for the City ownership I can assure you. Both shrugged their shoulders and said there was no smoking gun in those Der Spiegel articles. A bit embarrassing maybe but both agreed there was nothing there to hang them on."

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Mike Mcgrath is normally pretty good on City stuff:

Is that anything more than a reprint of the club position?