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

[old blue]

I've read this post six times and I still don't know what you're trying to say

20 posts in 11 years does not lend itself to clarity.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

This notion that you can be so rich nobody can compete with you is in footballing terms, not really true at all.

I'd say that Bayern, Celtic, Juventus and PSG disprove that theory, as well as pretty much every minor league with a Champions League place. Although interestingly, only one of those clubs got into that situation by being bankrolled. Every other one is able to dominate through the unfair way that the income is distributed and protectionist practices.

 

[Centurions]

I was hoping you would have a view of, on the one hand, of something city could argue (its not SM) and on the other, the likely reality (its SM).

But you think City won't use this as an argument anyway so I can't see why you seem bent on getting everyone to agree with you.

 

[slbsn]

But you think City won't use this as an argument anyway so I can't see why you seem bent on getting everyone to agree with you.

Couldn't care less if anyone agrees with me. As always tone not always easy on these forums

 

[BillyShears]

I'd say that Bayern, Celtic, Juventus and PSG disprove that theory, as well as pretty much every minor league with a Champions League place. Although interestingly, only one of those clubs got into that situation by being bankrolled. Every other one is able to dominate through the unfair way that the income is distributed and protectionist practices.

There may be some truth in those examples, and maybe me saying it's not possible is too much.

But I'm presuming the original post was premised on the idea that nobody can compete with City because we're 'owned by a nation state'. Well as I've said, I don't think that in the case of the Premier League and its big clubs and their riches, that its true to say they can't compete.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

There may be some truth in those examples, and maybe me saying it's not possible is too much.

But I'm presuming the original post was premised on the idea that nobody can compete with City because we're 'owned by a nation state'. Well as I've said, I don't think that in the case of the Premier League and its big clubs and their riches, that its true to say they can't compete.

Indeed. The problem is and always has been the (increasingly) unfair way that football income is divvied up. The Mansours and Abramoviches of the world are a symptom of this, not the cause.

 

[WRicko]

It's not clear though. It's certainly possible but there's a clear link between the Executive Council, which Is headed by 'HH', and the Etihad sponsorship. That document is the one certainty we have. And it says, if I recall correctly, that the EC "covers" the Etihad sponsorship. What we don't know is how it did that. Did it give the money to Etihad, who then passed it to City, or did it go via ADUG, along with Etihad's own contribution?

It's not something I've thought about before as I'd assumed from that Booz Allen presentation that the route was AD Exco -> Etihad -> City. But in the light of the Der Spiegel emails it's entirely possible that the money was routed from ExCo to ADUG for all the sponsorships, where it was added to the contribution from the sponsors themselves, then split up into the requisite streams and sent to City as separate remittances, in line with the individual sponsorship contracts. I've been saying "Why would ADUG suddenly pick up the sponsorship funding when ADEC were previously providing it?" but the new reading of events, with ADUG collecting the money, would answer that question.

UEFA's case seems to be mainly based on the fact that ADUG were topping up the relatively small amounts that were being contributed by the respective sponsors. In my view, for our evidence to be "irrefutable" in that case, we have to be able to demonstrate that not a single penny originated from ADUG and they were simply the mechanism for collecting sponsorship revenues from other parties and distributing those.

I think this nails it and squares the apparent damming emails with the apparent obvious holes in UEFAs case. Such as why would we fund our selves through Etihad when not related party. Surely ADEC Where funding everything. Why would we only get 8 million. From an audit point of view I would have thought it would make sense for Etihad to pay City directly

I guess there could be reasons to pay it ADUG or maybe What I am think more applies to CFG such as multiple clubs with Etihad sponsorship so send the total to ADUG / CFG then split it save Etihad some effort or maybe ADUG or CFG take a fee for setting up the sponsorship and managing the relationship with Etihad

 

[Centurions]

First of all they haven't berated their "conduct and trustworthiness." It is neither their job to nor would they. In any event, its not a debate on whether CAS will look at the procedural fairness..."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)

Did they not? That's not how I read it. (there may be more, it is a very long document)

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

109. Although the Panel does not exclude the possibility that one or more of MCFC’s rights in the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber may not have been fully respected, the Panel has confidence that, if such procedural violations were held to exist, the Adjudicatory Chamber will right such wrongs and/or take such alleged CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 31 violations into account in its decision, and if it does not, MCFC has the possibility of appealing the Adjudicatory Chamber’s final decision to CAS. (obviously not righted)

110. The Panel does not consider it appropriate to enter into a detailed analysis of the alleged deficiencies in the Investigatory Chamber proceedings, so as not to prejudge issues that are currently pending before the appropriate forum, i.e. the Adjudicatory Chamber, and which could later be brought in an admissible proceeding before CAS. In addition, the present Award is limited to the question of admissibility only and, thus, cannot trespass into the merits of MCFC’s appeal, i.e. whether or not its rights were violated by the Investigatory Chamber.

111. The Panel finds that it suffices to conclude that, on a prima facie basis, any procedural violations in the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber were not of such a nature that MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber, entitling it to file an appeal against the Referral Decision to CAS directly.

112. However, this finding by the Panel also implies that the Adjudicatory Chamber will seriously address and assess MCFC’s procedural complaints as promised by UEFA in its submissions before this Panel in these CAS proceedings. In any event, such alleged procedural deficiencies will be reviewable in the context of an admissible appeal to CAS against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber. G. The Alleged Leaks and the Potential Impact Thereof on the Impartiality of the Members of the Investigatory Chamber

113. The alleged leaking of information by members of the Investigatory Chamber or the UEFA administration about the proceedings against MCFC is worrisome. Again, the Panel is mindful not to trespass into the authority of the Adjudicatory Chamber to address MCFC’s procedural complaints in detail. However, it must be noted that MCFC’s complaints as to the leaks do not, on a prima facie basis, appear to be entirely without merit, particularly concerning the First and Second Leak, […], and the Fifth Leak, which refers to an “insider” at UEFA as the source.

114. It puzzles the Panel how the CFCB Chief Investigator could be so confident to “vehemently reject [MCFC’s] allegations of unlawful activities, either by myself or by any of the members of the UEFA CFCB, in particular of its Investigatory Chamber (IC)”, and to state that MCFC’s allegations regarding the leaks were “groundless in the merits” and to “assure [MCFC] that at no time, myself or any of my fellow members of the IC have violated any rights of your club”.

 

[Marvin]

I think this nails it and squares the apparent damming emails with the apparent obvious holes in UEFAs case. Such as why would we fund our selves through Etihad when not related party. Surely ADEC Where funding everything. Why would we only get 8 million. From an audit point of view I would have thought it would make sense for Etihad to pay City directly

I guess there could be reasons to pay it ADUG or maybe What I am think more applies to CFG such as multiple clubs with Etihad sponsorship so send the total to ADUG / CFG then split it save Etihad some effort or maybe ADUG or CFG take a fee for setting up the sponsorship and managing the relationship with Etihad

I think the UAE state underwrote the Etihad deal to all but £8m and ADUG were the conduit for state funds, and Sheikh Mansour's own companies sponsored City for relatively minor amounts. The email trails should only be part of the evidence.

 

[BillyShears]

Indeed. The problem is and always has been the (increasingly) unfair way that football income is divvied up. The Mansours and Abramoviches of the world are a symptom of this, not the cause.

The way the PL divides up its money is why the league has become so powerful and so successful IMO.

Do you think that there's a massive difference between Roman and Kroenke in terms of their financial profile?

If not then why do you think that he is characterised in one way and Kroenke is characterised very differently?

 

[slbsn]

Did they not? That's not how I read it. (there may be more, it is a very long document)

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

109. Although the Panel does not exclude the possibility that one or more of MCFC’s rights in the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber may not have been fully respected, the Panel has confidence that, if such procedural violations were held to exist, the Adjudicatory Chamber will right such wrongs and/or take such alleged CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 31 violations into account in its decision, and if it does not, MCFC has the possibility of appealing the Adjudicatory Chamber’s final decision to CAS. (obviously not righted)

110. The Panel does not consider it appropriate to enter into a detailed analysis of the alleged deficiencies in the Investigatory Chamber proceedings, so as not to prejudge issues that are currently pending before the appropriate forum, i.e. the Adjudicatory Chamber, and which could later be brought in an admissible proceeding before CAS. In addition, the present Award is limited to the question of admissibility only and, thus, cannot trespass into the merits of MCFC’s appeal, i.e. whether or not its rights were violated by the Investigatory Chamber.

111. The Panel finds that it suffices to conclude that, on a prima facie basis, any procedural violations in the proceedings before the Investigatory Chamber were not of such a nature that MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber, entitling it to file an appeal against the Referral Decision to CAS directly.

112. However, this finding by the Panel also implies that the Adjudicatory Chamber will seriously address and assess MCFC’s procedural complaints as promised by UEFA in its submissions before this Panel in these CAS proceedings. In any event, such alleged procedural deficiencies will be reviewable in the context of an admissible appeal to CAS against a decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber. G. The Alleged Leaks and the Potential Impact Thereof on the Impartiality of the Members of the Investigatory Chamber

113. The alleged leaking of information by members of the Investigatory Chamber or the UEFA administration about the proceedings against MCFC is worrisome. Again, the Panel is mindful not to trespass into the authority of the Adjudicatory Chamber to address MCFC’s procedural complaints in detail. However, it must be noted that MCFC’s complaints as to the leaks do not, on a prima facie basis, appear to be entirely without merit, particularly concerning the First and Second Leak, […], and the Fifth Leak, which refers to an “insider” at UEFA as the source.

114. It puzzles the Panel how the CFCB Chief Investigator could be so confident to “vehemently reject [MCFC’s] allegations of unlawful activities, either by myself or by any of the members of the UEFA CFCB, in particular of its Investigatory Chamber (IC)”, and to state that MCFC’s allegations regarding the leaks were “groundless in the merits” and to “assure [MCFC] that at no time, myself or any of my fellow members of the IC have violated any rights of your club”.

Yes I've read it once or twice (!).
109 only says "doesn't exclude the possibility...rights not fully respected" (not exactly scathing)
110 says nothing relevant to the point
111 says if there was failings they were not sufficient to say "MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber"
112 says nothing relevant to the point
113 says the leaks were "worrisome" and City's complaints "not entirely without merit". Its relevant and meaningful context for CAS 2 but its hardly game changing.
114 is similar to 113 in importance.

In any event, all can be cured on these topics by the de novo review of the case at CAS. It therefore becomes just background and neither here nor there. There is no victory for City just from CAS saying the AC didn't act well. CAS have to find the ACs judgment on matters was wrong.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I'd say that Bayern, Celtic, Juventus and PSG disprove that theory, as well as pretty much every minor league with a Champions League place. Although interestingly, only one of those clubs got into that situation by being bankrolled. Every other one is able to dominate through the unfair way that the income is distributed and protectionist practices.

And EUFA have the nerve to suggest FFP is about 'maintaining competitive balance.' I suppose from their point of view, until Madrid recently anyway, the fact that nobody had won the CL back-to-back, gave the illusion of competitive balance. In reality though, the CL is just like an elitist FA Cup, which will usually owe a huge amount to luck than consistancy. The decimation this money distribution is causing in the European Leagues is either not spotted (?) or is, more likely, being wilfully ignored. The only reason for that is the 'dream of a European super league', and, in some ways, it is probably what needs to happen.
Although I would hate it, Bayern about to win 8 in a row, Juventus 9, PSG 7 out of 8 and the list goes on, there is no real point to those leagues anymore and, if they were all in one league, they couldn't all keep winning it. I suppose you could have promotion and relegation from the domestic leagues into the 'super' league on a country by country basis. Win the PL and you replace the lowest finishing English team in the super league, perhaps?

 

[richards30]

Yes I've read it once or twice (!).
109 only says "doesn't exclude the possibility...rights not fully respected" (not exactly scathing)
110 says nothing relevant to the point
111 says if there was failings they were not sufficient to say "MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber"
112 says nothing relevant to the point
113 says the leaks were "worrisome" and City's complaints "not entirely without merit". Its relevant and meaningful context for CAS 2 but its hardly game changing.
114 is similar to 113 in importance.

In any event, all can be cured on these topics by the de novo review of the case at CAS. It therefore becomes just background and neither here nor there. There is no victory for City just from CAS saying the AC didn't act well. CAS have to find the ACs judgment on matters was wrong.

a top lawyer would certainly focus on things like that though! Leaking to media to whip up a frenzy? Guilty until proven innocent? A good lawyer with that in mind what also drop into the conversation about being judged by people who are currently under investigation for bribery actually calling someone out for cheating? It’s not relevant to the point but to get into the mindset of the judges in question that the hypocrisy at uefa is at an unprecedented level!

 

[BillyShears]

a top lawyer would certainly focus on things like that though! Leaking to media to whip up a frenzy? Guilty until proven innocent? A good lawyer with that in mind what also drop into the conversation about being judged by people who are currently under investigation for bribery actually calling someone out for cheating? It’s not relevant to the point but to get into the mindset of the judges in question that the hypocrisy at uefa is at an unprecedented level!

The point is that none of that will matter as CAS are basically going to look at whether UEFA were within their own regulations to reopen the investigation into City based on football leaks. Their conduct is irrelevant as now it's about the rights and wrongs of the investigation itself.

Also, I know that we feel that we've been hard done by. But fucking hell some of the stuff written in the leaked emails is quite frankly as bad as any leak UEFA have made to the papers about our guilt or innocence. We literally have a lawyer employed by City on email saying he hopes the other six people on UEFA's FFP panel die, or words to that effect.

We have to win this on the merits of our case vs UEFA's rules. If it becomes a morality competition both parties will lose!

 

[Coatigan]

I'm not sure that's entirely true, CAS have already berated UEFA for their conduct and trustworthiness. The could very well suggest some serious investigation and reorganisation at UEFA (even if they can't enforce it).

They haven't really though. We wish they had, but that hasn't happened

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

The one fact that we do know about the Etihad sponsorhip (and about Etihad in general) is that the Executive Council had been covering it and Etihad appears to have been the recipient of substantial state aid. It's there in the Open Skies Case documents.

We don't know for sure who Pearce was referring to when he used 'HH' so it's nonsense to say that it was "clearly" Sheikh Mansour. If it was referring to Sheikh Mansour, rather than MBZ, why not use 'ADUG' instead? They appear to use that in a number of other emails and we must assume that Pearce, as a senior adviser to the Executive Council, would know the correct protocol.

I'd very much doubt that who HH refers to will have been our key line of defence though, or even part of it. As you've been saying all along, if we have a contract with Etihad and can show that the contract has been fulfilled, then there's no case for us to answer. Again, I don't fully agree with that line of reasoning. The source of funds is certainly the core of UEFA's case here, as the Der Spiegel stories demonstrated.

We'll hopefully find out in the next few weeks. Until then, we're all guessing.

On the contrary PB, I’ve been saying the same as you. Indeed Projectriver pulled me up on it earlier this week, stating this was the last time he was going to go over the same ground, after I asked for clarification of the point. The fact that we would appear to have been blatantly funding Etihad (re the £59m payment ‘HH’ would be responsible for) for them to in turn meet their sponsorship obligations, has always been my biggest concern, to the point that I still can’t reconcile myself to the possibility that CAS won’t regard it as the essence of the whole case, and our audited accounts are bound to be shipshape cos money coming into City from Etihad is not where the issue lies IMO.
However, I accept the argument (from people who have a hundred times more idea of what they’re talking about than I do) that if UEFA deemed it fair market value at the time, then the audited accounts should have primacy.

By the way, am I right in thinking that when the Etihad deal was first announced, City stated that the cost of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations would be met by the Executive Council? If so, I don’t understand the apparent switch to ADUG meeting the bulk of the payment....

 

[Newquayblue]

I hope City lose at CAS and have a squad clear out. We have a season of chaos and confusion next year and we see lots of training ground footage of Brian Kidd kicking over cones. Stones and Walker come out as a couple and some footy lads try and tear up the yaya training pitch. Then from the ashes Phil 'the Phoenix' Foden leads a team of academy graduates to the 2022 premier league title after beating a united team managed by Giggs 6-2 and 0-14. Then the following season as Phil lifts the champions league trophy then surprise Phil himself pops out of the trophy and pulls a mask off the Phil who is lifting the trophy and, surprise, its David Silva. Then they all come to my house and we are best friends forever.

I agree and then historic pics of David in black face make up emerge and further scandal ensues - hahahaha

 

[1 Point is Not Enough]

And EUFA have the nerve to suggest FFP is about 'maintaining competitive balance.' I suppose from their point of view, until Madrid recently anyway, the fact that nobody had won the CL back-to-back, gave the illusion of competitive balance. In reality though, the CL is just like an elitist FA Cup, which will usually owe a huge amount to luck than consistancy. The decimation this money distribution is causing in the European Leagues is either not spotted (?) or is, more likely, being wilfully ignored. The only reason for that is the 'dream of a European super league', and, in some ways, it is probably what needs to happen.
Although I would hate it, Bayern about to win 8 in a row, Juventus 9, PSG 7 out of 8 and the list goes on, there is no real point to those leagues anymore and, if they were all in one league, they couldn't all keep winning it. I suppose you could have promotion and relegation from the domestic leagues into the 'super' league on a country by country basis. Win the PL and you replace the lowest finishing English team in the super league, perhaps?

I completely agree with this. Which is why teams like Burnley and Leicester joining up with the hateful 8 really does my head in. Surely they want to see competition in the premier league and not let things become a one team league like in Ligue 1, Serie A and the Bundesleague?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I agree with most of what you say, however, my point is not what we might have done but with what the top management have said we have done which is NOTHING improper. If this is true we will win (even if we have to go to the highest international courts to eventually prove it).
In my opinion (and it is only my opinion) once City’s top people stated that we are not guilty of anything illegal or against UEFA rules the only way out is to prove our statement is true (or in court make sure that UEFA cannot disprove it).
That way the media will have no way of arguing that City have been complicit in any way (although we all know that they try in every way possible)
I still have every confidence in our top people. They appear to me to be honourable in what they say and how they act in connection with Manchester City FC.

Fair enough Silva top and you make reasonable points. There are far bigger deals than breaking FFP. Tariq Panja, one of the sports journalists who claims to be interested in human rights, is bellyaching today that not enough journalists are focussing on Amanda Stavely’s case against Barclays. I messaged Tariq back to say there are far bigger things going on in the world including a global pandemic and mass protests / race riots.!

It’s all relative and a defeat at CAS would be bad news. That said, worst we will be if guilty is cheats as well damaged financially (and probably weaker on the pitch too). We won’t be the Club who kicked the families of the victims of Munich Air Disaster out of their homes or the Club with ex players who still claim Chelsea fans killed the Juventus 39.

I hope we are innocent but I would happily accept us getting away with a slap on the wrist through some legal technicality.

 

[BolinCell]

The point is that none of that will matter as CAS are basically going to look at whether UEFA were within their own regulations to reopen the investigation into City based on football leaks. Their conduct is irrelevant as now it's about the rights and wrongs of the investigation itself.

Also, I know that we feel that we've been hard done by. But fucking hell some of the stuff written in the leaked emails is quite frankly as bad as any leak UEFA have made to the papers about our guilt or innocence. We literally have a lawyer employed by City on email saying he hopes the other six people on UEFA's FFP panel die, or words to that effect.

So on that point alone we will be judged, rather precarious situation then.