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

[Len Rum]

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

Don't think so if the original case was brought within the five year limit?

 

[Big Swifty]

If I were granted one wish by a fairy who suddenly appeared, I wouldn't know which to choose - City to be totally cleared of any wrongdoing, or United going out of business.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Its perfectly possible to compromise. Its always possible to compromise.

In most cases it is possible to compromise but in this instance I can’t see how. It is as close to a zero sum game as regards to a ban.

The Football Leaks created a situation where UEFA had to act. The outcome had to produce a ban in order for FFP to have any teeth. City couldn’t accept a ban. So in order to protect FFP they banned City for an unprecedented 2 years.

If CAS decides the punishment was disproportionate and we get a lesser ban then at least. If CAS finds issues with the UEFA administration of law (whether breaching the original settlement, time limits or issues of fair procedure) and the appeal is upheld then the principles of FFP aren’t the issue but procedural law. UEFA can hold their hands up and say they tried.

In short the leaks/ Der Spiegel article created a situation where no real compromise was possible.

 

[bluemanchester]

Yeah i'd seen that, i think that is skipping a few steps of the process and jumping to a conclusion, myself. something our media is often quick to do

When City are involved

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Even though Khaldoon said we wouldn't do it again you could see a Pinch MK2 coming out of this. Obviously it would have to have no ban whatsoever but if it was a small financial penalty and a don't make it look like you are trying to get round the rules in future type of thing.

That would leave us open to the possibility that our submissions to UEFA were untrue and then we have issues with the premier league or our accounts aren’t correct and we have all sorts of issues with compliance with companies acts and accounting standards.

 

[KS55]

If I were granted one wish by a fairy who suddenly appeared, I wouldn't know which to choose - City to be totally cleared of any wrongdoing, or United going out of business.

And unlimited cash, a beautiful harem, real ale on tap. Anything else?

 

[Akpowell]

If I were granted one wish by a fairy who suddenly appeared, I wouldn't know which to choose - City to be totally cleared of any wrongdoing, or United going out of business.

Bye, bye scum.

 

[slbsn]

In most cases it is possible to compromise but in this instance I can’t see how. It is as close to a zero sum game as regards to a ban.

The Football Leaks created a situation where UEFA had to act. The outcome had to produce a ban in order for FFP to have any teeth. City couldn’t accept a ban. So in order to protect FFP they banned City for an unprecedented 2 years.

If CAS decides the punishment was disproportionate and we get a lesser ban then at least. If CAS finds issues with the UEFA administration of law (whether breaching the original settlement, time limits or issues of fair procedure) and the appeal is upheld then the principles of FFP aren’t the issue but procedural law. UEFA can hold their hands up and say they tried.

In short the leaks/ Der Spiegel article created a situation where no real compromise was possible.

Not much I agree with here I'm afraid. UEFA did not have to act on the leaked emails. If that is all they have they are a weak basis for a charge and a finding. Secondly, they could easily have said, "these matters were investigated in 2014, we believed City inflated sponsorship revenue and entered into a settlement agreement and settlement regime where we monitored them closely for 2 more years. Accordingly, these matters are now closed. If we find evidence that this occurred in the periods now under review we will take action." That would have been the end of it.

City could have accepted a ban and still can. Indeed if they thought they were going to fail at CAS they would be offering all sorts to get the ban down to one year. A 2 year ban is not double a one year ban - even more so following Covid. To miss the 2020/21 CL is no big deal especially if a settlement blocks any PL consequences. Going to CAS loses control of the articulation of the breach. It is risky.

So we could get a reduced ban from CAS but still be in a very poor position with the PL.

As I have said over and over, the procedural failings of UEFA are not now relevant to CAS. CAS will cure them - the case will be heard on its merits both in law (ie the rules of UEFA and Swiss law where relevant) and in the substantive matters. Any comments CAS makes about UEFA whilst finding against City would be a pyrrhic victory.

 

[slbsn]

That would leave us open to the possibility that our submissions to UEFA were untrue and then we have issues with the premier league or our accounts aren’t correct and we have all sorts of issues with compliance with companies acts and accounting standards.

This is the wrong way round. A settlement can say what the parties want it to say. We have far more control in settlement than in a CAS judgement.

 

[FrankSwift1]

Not much I agree with here I'm afraid. UEFA did not have to act on the leaked emails. If that is all they have they are a weak basis for a charge and a finding. Secondly, they could easily have said, "these matters were investigated in 2014, we believed City inflated sponsorship revenue and entered into a settlement agreement and settlement regime where we monitored them closely for 2 more years. Accordingly, these matters are now closed. If we find evidence that this occurred in the periods now under review we will take action." That would have been the end of it.

City could have accepted a ban and still can. Indeed if they thought they were going to fail at CAS they would be offering all sorts to get the ban down to one year. A 2 year ban is not double a one year ban - even more so following Covid. To miss the 2020/21 CL is no big deal especially if a settlement blocks any PL consequences. Going to CAS loses control of the articulation of the breach. It is risky.

So we could get a reduced ban from CAS but still be in a very poor position with the PL.

As I have said over and over, the procedural failings of UEFA are not now relevant to CAS. CAS will cure them - the case will be heard on its merits both in law (ie the rules of UEFA and Swiss law where relevant) and in the substantive matters. Any comments CAS makes about UEFA whilst finding against City would be a pyrrhic victory.

'As I have said over and over, the procedural failings of UEFA are not now relevant to CAS.'

Isn't that inherently unfair though? It pretty much means that Uefa procedurally can 'do what they want' and still be rewarded by getting a successful outcome.

So CAS is basically a fresh hearing where everything is on the table?

 

[slbsn]

'As I have said over and over, the procedural failings of UEFA are not now relevant to CAS.'

Isn't that inherently unfair though? It pretty much means that Uefa procedurally can 'do what they want' and still be rewarded by getting a successful outcome.

So CAS is basically a fresh hearing where everything is on the table?

Unfair or not that is the rule. "The facts and the law are examined de novo by a CAS panel in accordance with the power bestowed on it by article R57 of the CAS Code. The panel is therefore not limited to the facts and legal arguments of the previous instance. In relation to issues regarding the procedure at the lower instance, it is well-established in CAS’ case law that procedural defects in the lower instances can be cured through the de novo hearing before CAS." (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/4704.pdf)

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

If I were granted one wish by a fairy who suddenly appeared, I wouldn't know which to choose - City to be totally cleared of any wrongdoing, or United going out of business.

I'd want the dippers out of business as well. And fucking Bayern

 

[waspish]

Don't think so if the original case was brought within the five year limit?

Yeah one day.

 

[SilverFox2]

What about a compromise as follows;

Withdrawal of FFP fine totally because innocent as per our evidence.

However guilty of not providing said evidence mitigated by our lack of trust in their leaking membership and its ever changing rules.

Fined 100 euro but awarded costs.

 

[LucahArchie10]

Anyone feeling a little sick, dizzy,
worried maybe excited?

Its City & we all know its going to the final minutes

It's another 93.20 moment imo, City wouldnt do it any other way now would they?

Like I said on lots of posts we have some top top guys with great knowledge & know there job inside out but with this case I feel 1 day it's going to be easy then other days we are fooked.
What will be will be if we are guilty then we have to reap what we sow

If we do lose this case then I do see players leaving but if we win it then contracts will be renewed & players will be coming in nothing more certain

Its City & we wouldnt want it any other way

Fasten your belts it's about to get shitty

CTID

 

[Parisian]

You keep saying this but you are wrong. Are you unaware of your clubs business or are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes? PSG were charged TWICE by Uefa for breaking ffp. In 2014, they were sanctioned and took action as you say. The second charge was the same day as City's current case. At the IC, Leterme upped the sponsorship value that the experts put on the "world branding", thus putting PSG in compliance. When the chair of the AC found out, he tried to reopen the case but CAS ruled it out of time.
Of course, it was a complete coincidence that Bein Sports had just done a big deal with Uefa for tv rights. Bein, of course, share a president with PSG.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...int-germain-decision-upheld-cas-a8830166.html
Google it, several articles available. The NY Times article is particularly good. Stop being a pillock with this line.

The problem is, as evidenced by my posts above, companies contradict other companies over what is the fair value. And ofc, Der Spiegel in their reports, only take the lowest value given by one firm as the ultimate "true fair value".

Says Tariq Panja. The same guy who is saying your Etihad sponsor is worth 8 M€.

In reality, the sponsors have deen downvalued (again). And QTA has even been terminated. It wasn't allowed to stand.





https://www.sportbuzzbusiness.fr/ps...devalues-de-51-millions-deuros-par-luefa.html

According to L’Equipe journalist Etienne Moatti, UEFA and the club’s financial control body (ICFC) devalued these 5 contracts by 37% in total. In detail, the contract signed with QTA would bring 145 million euros per season to the club. A contract that the club itself values only 100M € in the figures presented to UEFA since 2014. After the new investigation recently conducted on the accounts of PSG, this contract would have been valued at 58 million euros annually , "A staggering difference of 42 million euros" writes the journalist. The other 4 partnerships have also been devalued, going from € 38 million to € 29 million. The total haircuts on contracts "made in Qatar" therefore amount to € 51 million, adds the daily. "Sollicited, the Parisian club does not dispute this amount that it must find so as not to be in the eye of the storm again from the start of next season.

Bolded part consistent with the first graphs.



https://www.lemonde.fr/football/art...n-de-cause-devant-le-tas_5438342_1616938.html
According to the FootballLeaks, PSG leaders in May 2018 directly spoke with those of UEFA, including its head of financial fair play, Andrea Traverso. The UEFA delegation then told PSG that the investigation was to be discontinued "for political reasons".

A secret amicable settlement has been proposed by the leaders of the European Confederation. But the investigating chamber of the ICFC refused this agreement and devalued the Qatari sponsors, pushing PSG to sell several players (Javier Pastore, Yuri Berchiche) to garner 60 million euros.

So, apparently, we did get approached like City by the leaders of UEFA but ICFC didn't agree. Bit like the reports saying Ceferin tried to do a deal with you but ICFC went with their investigation.

Nice read about Panja being asked to clarify the points in his article :

Where does this belief come from exactly ?

From Le Monde :

But the CAS judgment does not remove all the threats weighing on Paris-Saint-Germain, which must at all costs increase its sponsorship revenues: it must indeed bear the burden of the salaries of Neymar and Mbappé, and compensate for the devaluation of its income by the ICFC.

(1) As of this year, according to a source close to the ICFC, all Qatari club sponsors are valued at 52 million euros - while PSG signed a 145 million agreement with the Qatar Tourism Authority. The partnership expires in June 2019 and will not be renewed, as decided by the ICCC’s investigative chamber.

(2) In 2020, adds this source, the PSG will not be able to record any income of a sponsor considered as a related party, that is to say a company linked to the Qatari State, owner of the club through its sovereign fund Qatar Sports Investments (QSI).

(3) In addition, if it does not make significant sales this summer, the Paris club will have to generate 150 million euros annually to be in balance. And this when it must make a cross on the sum of 10.5 million euros, provided by UEFA in the event of qualification for the quarters of the Champions League, and on additional receipts in terms of ticketing.

Given these devaluations, the PSG's forecast deficit was estimated at 124 million euros for the 2017-2018 season, while the maximum deficit authorized to comply with the FPF is 30 million euros over three seasons.

(4) According to a source close to the ICFC, Aleksander Ceferin can"be relieved by the CAS decision. Despite the apparent defeat of UEFA. " If the CAS had decided differently, the investigating chamber of the CFCB would no doubt have been pushed to sanction the PSG. The latter was then said to have been tempted to legally attack UEFA after having complied with the investigating chamber’s decision in June 2018.

So, exactly, what charges were dropped ?

(1) PSG Qataris contracts have been valued at 52 M from 2019. City UAE contracts are higher than that. UEFA even forced PSG to terminate QTA contract. PSG complied with their demands.
If UEFA ask City to terminate a contract and City oblige, will you say that coincidentally all charges were dropped ? Or would you say that City has cooperated ?

(2) PSG is forbidden from signing a contract from a related party. Seems like it was finally allowed as Qatar Airways has followed Emirates Airways as the carrier of the club. The price is in the standard of the deal with other european clubs linked with Qatar Airways. So, no problem with fair market value.

(3) PSG had to sell players to balance the books on top of registering new contracts (Nike, Accor, Rwanda, Replay, Renault, etc.) since the devaluations put PSG out of the break even requirement. Similar to what is happening with City being in break even deficit after devaluation of UAE contracts.

(4) Ceferin relieved because he was fearing PSG challenging UEFA and FFP if a sanction had been put. Isn't it exactly what is happening with City ?

The funny thing is you don't realize that when City will have a successful appeal, the very same argument you are applying here will be used to say that City cheated their way out of trouble.

You are the one unaware of the case, i'm afraid. I literally posted what happened:

-UEFA came back on their agreed value of contracts from 2014 : true.
-UEFA forced PSG to terminate QTA : true.
-PSG had 15 days to sell players due to the new value of their sponsoring contracts and comply with the break even rule : true.
-PSG proceeded to sell according to the plan : true.
-AC chamber then came back knocking but they didn't follow their own procedures, resulting in a loss at the appeal : true.

Now, if Leterme was so deep in our pocket and so powerful to singlehandedly decide our fate, given he is the IC chief investigator, why didn't he just stick with the previous 2014 value set by UEFA itself ? It would have save us a lot of trouble, reputation wise, money wise (we have lost hundred of millions of € in our buying power), sporting wise (we had to sell players at a discount).

You see it as a win because PSG didn't get banned, i see it as a financial sanction of PSG (we could staight up pay for Sancho cash for the kind of money we lost). We have just avoided the worst case scenario.

PS : yes, UEFA concluded a deal with BeinSport. What is the correlation between that and the IC and Leterme. Why did the AC try to circumvent the IC decision when UEFA was getting money from Bein ? If UEFA as a whole benefit from Bein, why is it Leterme, specifically, who is rooting for us alone ? I would have thought that the one with the final authority (AC president) would have been in the fix. Someohow, it doesn't add up.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Unfair or not that is the rule. "The facts and the law are examined de novo by a CAS panel in accordance with the power bestowed on it by article R57 of the CAS Code. The panel is therefore not limited to the facts and legal arguments of the previous instance. In relation to issues regarding the procedure at the lower instance, it is well-established in CAS’ case law that procedural defects in the lower instances can be cured through the de novo hearing before CAS." (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared Documents/4704.pdf)

Sorry to be a thicky, but how can a de novo hearing cure procedural defects? Surely either UEFA complied with their own regulations (5 year rules etc), or they didn't, and if they didn't, then as per your own piece for 93:20, the case against us can still be dismissed by CAS once they've assessed that procedural compliance, or lack thereof, along with all the other evidence?

 

[Harvster]

Unlike our resident finance expert correspondents, I'm a bit thick when it comes to all this stuff; but what I do know is that we must have faith in our learned QC, who has vast experience, (including, but not exhaustively ((is that a word?)) ) in the far North of England, the Republic of Ireland, the east of Scotland and the area surrounding Kingston upon Hull. In light of the above, what more could we ask for? Remember fellow mooners, keep calm, defo don't panic

 

[slbsn]

Sorry to be a thicky, but how can a de novo hearing cure procedural defects? Surely either UEFA complied with their own regulations (5 year rules etc), or they didn't, and if they didn't, then as per your own piece for 93:20, the case against us can still be dismissed by CAS once they've assessed that procedural compliance, or lack thereof, along with all the other evidence?

You are confusing procedural matters with regulations. Procedural matters are things like giving the club the right notice or treating them fairly etc. But either way, everything can be cured by looking at the whole situation afresh as it will do.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Its public knowledge (for those that can join the dots) that I settled a £640m claim on a Saturday night before the commencement of a trial at the High Court on the Monday morning. Cases settle during trials. Cases settle after trials but before judgements. Cases settle even after judgements but before appeals.

Thanks for the reply. Just the £640m, then? ;)