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

[slbsn]

Does anyone expect that Manchester City would ever have allowed Etihad to put their name all over our stadium and shirt for £8m pa?

The emails suggest funding came through ADUG but Etihad had a commercial undertaking to sponsor City to the tune of at least £40m pa according to contemporaneous media reports. Evidence of disguised owner investment appears to City fans to be superficial.

Yes - a ridiculous concept especially as it was deemed fair value at the full amount and the full amount is the audited value.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas

MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

Interesting article but I have a couple of issues with the paragraph mentioned. In the article he refers to the statute of limitations being 5 years from the date of infringement.

The settlement was almost 5 years before the date of the new proceedings however the date of the breach of FFP would appear to be more than 5 years prior to the date of the new proceedings, d some of the more salacious allegations date from spring 2013 and December 2013.

Perhaps UEFA have argued that this doesn’t apply in cases of misrepresentation or some other exception. More likely the case will be that if we were shown to be non-compliant in the years 2013-2016 (which were the post settlement monitoring period) then we should not have been released from the settlement regime.

 

[MCC]

I'm sure if he hasn't done so already Stefan will advise you that UEFA's own regulations state that the limitation period commences from the date of the alleged breach not the date of the settlement.

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

That's interesting but it's hard to see that a few ambiguous Der Spiegel emails could be described as "substantial facts or evidence." This may well be what UEFA are trying to argue. I don't remember seeing anything about UEFA's Exec Committee applying to its own Investigation Committee to re-open the case though. FFS what a kangaroo court it has been.

 

[cityzen81]

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

The Der Speigel emails were leaked in Nov/Dec but they didn’t formally announce we were under investigation till the following March? That means they took longer than the 14 days they stipulate as well?

 

[hihosilva]

That's interesting but it's hard to see that a few ambiguous Der Spiegel emails could be described as "substantial facts or evidence." This may well be what UEFA are trying to argue. I don't remember seeing anything about UEFA's Exec Committee applying to its own Investigation Committee to re-open the case though. FFS what a kangaroo court it has been.

As i see it a few ambiguous emails are exactly what they are relying on plus a charge of city refusing to communicate.

 

[ancoats]

Ancoats. Couldn't agree more. Burnley saying they will run out of money in August just proves how clubs spend before they receive. They gamble on the future and it's not just Burnley too. And as for the history clubs who essentially are the same as the rest, their concern is that well managed City will take some of the pie, and without the whole pie, they will all go tits.

the thing i hated under swales at city was the loan taken on future season tickets sales crazy crazy way of running a football club. i know most clubs did it and still do it today but that is really taking the piss out of the fans ? city fans never once or asked or demanded a trophy or winning anything. we would turn up for the love of the club we would walk on burning coals to watch the game. even spending my last £1 on city in my younger days. it was that or music and city won most times

football is a crazy business and many clubs are built on sand.the debt is just hidden behind another name the clubs is using and most clubs have 2 or 3 trading names just to fudge the debt. this can not go on much longer after the covid-19 virus. the lessons must be learnt that building for tomorrow put some money away just in case. have a fund that you can not touch or lend money on. its got to be solid and untouchable

 

[ancoats]

even City have arrangements where they take payment from the bank secured against future prize money and TV income, it's part of business especially when your revenue streams and timings aren't constant.

its daft and crazy to loan money from banks on the future nobody knows the future ?? football need to change it need to clean its act up and clubs should be debt free and have future investment plans in place just for the very thing like covid-19 and its pandemic out break

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Yes - a ridiculous concept especially as it was deemed fair value at the full amount and the full amount is the audited value.

I know you’ve probably explained this ad nauseam already, but I flounder on this aspect of proceedings continually. If the email says Etihad only has to pay £8m of the £67m sponsorship, and ADUG stumps up the readies for the remaining £59m and feeds it into the club via Etihad, then surely this is disguised (and blatant) owner investment isn’t it? Why is it deemed a nonsense concept? Is whoever wrote the email mistaken?

 

[Mikeegrini]

Weren't allowed pop in our house. Mum and Dad thought they were doing us a favour health-wise but I just nicked me dad's cans of lager instead!

Sadly it was only Corporation Pop in our house, direct from the tap. :( Though I do remember nicking some of my step dads whiskey and topping it up with water, I must have been about 9/10. I was sooo careful not to put too much back in. So carefull it didn't really mix in and I got my arse walloped.

 

[asahartford1]

the thing i hated under swales at city was the loan taken on future season tickets sales crazy crazy way of running a football club. i know most clubs did it and still do it today but that is really taking the piss out of the fans ? city fans never once or asked or demanded a trophy or winning anything. we would turn up for the love of the club we would walk on burning coals to watch the game. even spending my last £1 on city in my younger days. it was that or music and city won most times

football is a crazy business and many clubs are built on sand.the debt is just hidden behind another name the clubs is using and most clubs have 2 or 3 trading names just to fudge the debt. this can not go on much longer after the covid-19 virus. the lessons must be learnt that building for tomorrow put some money away just in case. have a fund that you can not touch or lend money on. its got to be solid and untouchable

The problem is, the first club to do this, and put the money in the piggy bank for a rainy day, would need that money as they went to the lower reaches of the league.
It could not be done unilaterally.

 

[slbsn]

Yes, I thought that too.

I don`t know if UEFA`s Article 53 is relevant but here it is and it looks like UEFA could re-open our case?

Article 53 - Reopening of proceedings

1 On request, the competent disciplinary body reopens proceedings where a party or UEFA claims to have new and substantial facts or evidence that it was unable to provide before the decision became effective.

2 An application to reopen proceedings must be addressed to the disciplinary body that took the contested decision within 14 days of the grounds for review coming to light, and no more than four years after the decision in question became effective.

3 Cases related to doping, fraud, bribery, corruption or match-fixing offences are not subject to the above limitations and can be reopened at any time.

I am drafting a view on Football Law's article (which I enjoyed and is worthy of discussion). I'll post it shortly.

On A53, as far as we know this is not a "re-opening". If it is what is the "decision"? Could it be the exit of the settlement regime? Perhaps, in which case it is within 4 years. It does not appear from what we know to have been done within 14 days in any event. I actually think it would be able to argue the leaks were "new and substantial facts or evidence..." So it could be relevant but it's not been mentioned before and the dates don't seem to work and UEFA's sanctions do not refer to this being a reopening of the old settlement regime. Of course if the "decision" that they needed to reopen was the settlement agreement itself, that timed out in May 2018.

 

[slbsn]

I know you’ve probably explained this ad nauseam already, but I flounder on this aspect of proceedings continually. If the email says Etihad only has to pay £8m of the £67m sponsorship, and ADUG stumps up the readies for the remaining £59m and feeds it into the club via Etihad, then surely this is disguised (and blatant) owner investment isn’t it? Why is it deemed a nonsense concept? Is whoever wrote the email mistaken?

The ridiculous concept is that the fair value of the contract was £8m. Not what you wrote.

What you wrote is UEFA's argument. I say, even if true, you have to look at the contract and the audit. They both say (as have Etihad itself) that City had a contract with Etihad for £67m pa which only Etihad was legally responsible for. How Etihad got the funds is not in itself City's business. UEFA are entitled to ask whether Etihad is a related party. Clearly if Etihad is being funded by City's ultimate parent it is strong evidence that it is related. If it is related (and we know UEFA conclude IT WAS (City protested)) then you have to look at whether it was market value. We know UEFA concluded it was market value. In other words, it was irrelevant whether it was related or not. I'm afraid this has to be final time I try and explain this point here. Also note, we may not succeed with that argument, I may well be wrong and it may not even make sense in writing.

 

[KS55]

The problem is, the first club to do this, and put the money in the piggy bank for a rainy day, would need that money as they went to the lower reaches of the league.
It could not be done unilaterally.

PB's ideas on limits to debt repayment times may be part of the answer here tho' I can't see g14 agreeing to that or indeed a compulsory fund. Back to square 1.

 

[KS55]

I am drafting a view on Football Law's article (which I enjoyed and is worthy of discussion). I'll post it shortly.

On A53, as far as we know this is not a "re-opening". If it is what is the "decision"? Could it be the exit of the settlement regime? Perhaps, in which case it is within 4 years. It does not appear from what we know to have been done within 14 days in any event. I actually think it would be able to argue the leaks were "new and substantial facts or evidence..." So it could be relevant but it's not been mentioned before and the dates don't seem to work and UEFA's sanctions do not refer to this being a reopening of the old settlement regime. Of course if the "decision" that they needed to reopen was the settlement agreement itself, that timed out in May 2018.

I must say Football Law's article gave me a moment of doubt. Then I thought our legal team must have considered this, I look forward to your view.

 

[M18CTID]

Yes - a ridiculous concept especially as it was deemed fair value at the full amount and the full amount is the audited value.

So the sponsorship wasn’t over-inflated, and surely it’s just a case of where the money to fund most of it came from. Yet haven’t UEFA stated that the punishment relates to over-inflating our sponsorship deals....to values signed off by themselves as being acceptable?!!!

 

[KS55]

So the sponsorship wasn’t over-inflated, and surely it’s just a case of where the money to fund most of it came from. Yet haven’t UEFA stated that the punishment relates to over-inflating our sponsorship deals....to values signed off by themselves as being acceptable?!!!

I don't think Uefa mean over inflated in the sense of not fair value, but in the sense of over stating Etihad's contribution or contractual obligation. But I assume we have contracts which state the full amount.

 

[M18CTID]

I don't think Uefa mean over inflated in the sense of not fair value, but in the sense of over stating Etihad's contribution or contractual obligation. But I assume we have contracts which state the full amount.

Yeah, could be the thick twats in the press misinterpreting it.

 

[asahartford1]

PB's ideas on limits to debt repayment times may be part of the answer here tho' I can't see g14 agreeing to that or indeed a compulsory fund. Back to square 1.

When United were going to breach player pay limits 2 years ago, Gill and co quickly got rid of the limitations.
I cannot see how any clubs who have the power and money altering rules to level the playing field.
At the same time other leagues are attempting to overtake the premier league as number 1.
It may be short term thinking, but hasn't it always been thus.

 

[M18CTID]

Just going back to this dispute between City and UEFA as to whether Etihad are a related party. It seems to me that Etihad are considered a related party when it suits UEFA, and not a related party when it suits them too, ie: when an allegation like this comes up!