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

[slbsn]

I thought UEFA were charging us with distorting revenue and non-cooperation, and that CAS had already raised concerns about the conduct of UEFA's investigation which appeared to City fans as being a public trial played out in conjunction with media smear.

At the minimum I expect the sanction to be reduced.

Right or wrong, I have consistently felt the non-cooperation charge is irrelevant. If CAS finds for UEFA on the principal issues they are such serious matters that non-cooperation is a minor but ultimately irrelevant aggravating factor. If CAS finds for City, there is no way (IMO) that it makes any meaningful sanction based on a wholly subjective "non-cooperation" charge. We know, for example, that City made substantial submissions and it is very hard to show that this was "non-cooperation".

 

[Centurions]

Why would all other clubs be in the dock as well? Changing the toolkit was always going to affect City more than practically every other club because just before UEFA brought FFP in, we spent an absolute shit ton of money on players in 2009 and 2010 (as was our right because there was no FFP then), so as a result of those purchases and the huge increase in our wage bill we were always going to be struggling to pass the break-even test during the first monitoring period, even without UEFA moving the goalposts. However, by moving them when they did it became the difference between perhaps not being in breach and failing by a mile. Either way, because FFP was foisted upon us immediately after a period of very heavy spending, IMO there’s no real scandal in us failing FFP during that first monitoring period. Sure, I agree with @petrusha that we took the piss a bit by trying to include certain things in our revenue but on the flip side UEFA took the piss too by changing the toolkit when they did so we can call that a draw.

If I understand it correctly, we knew we would fail the break even requirements by a country mile but because it was the first monitoring period the toolkit seemed to suggest that we could use mitigating circumstances (the pre- 2010(?) wages) to avoid actual punishment. Hence the "small pinch" statement where the reduced squad and relatively small fine didn't affect us too much.

 

[Centurions]

FWIW the settlement agreement expressly stated we made no admission in respect of the breaches

"[The Settlement Agreement] specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR." para 6 of https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

Cheers, that's the first 'new' information on the 2014 case that I've seen for a good long while.

 

[M18CTID]

If I understand it correctly, we knew we would fail the break even requirements by a country mile but because it was the first monitoring period the toolkit seemed to suggest that we could use mitigating circumstances (the pre- 2010(?) wages) to avoid actual punishment. Hence the "small pinch" statement where the reduced squad and relatively small fine didn't affect us too much.

Apologies if I didn’t make it clear, but yes, when I said not being in breach I meant once the pre-June 2010 contracts were taken into consideration. The changing of the toolkit, however, meant that we weren’t even able to use that provision despite being led to believe by UEFA (before they moved the goalposts) that we could.

 

[kdbrise]

The fact that one angle, which clearly shows the ball hitting Llorente's hand, is rarely if ever shown, even now, speaks volumes for me !

Anyone else think the drawing process is suspicious too, both times going out to English clubs so it won't look like they are favoring a particular FA. It it happened against Bayern or Barca, English media would be more sympathetic to us.

 

[Keeper!]

When you look at the detail the whole thing really does stink.

We were stitched up like a kipper, whether we had missed FFP by hundreds of millions is immaterial given the initial formula they sent would have seen us fail but avoid sanction.

They moved the goal posts. That is the top and bottom of it.

This whole current charade is because they wanted to revisit this time period based on a few misconstrued emails.

We should have challenged in 2014 the same way we have challenged this time. We took a pinch and gave them a level of trust we felt would be reciprocated.

I don’t see any other logical way of looking at it other than the G14 and parts of UEFA being out to stop us.

It really is as simple as that.

If I remember correctly we headhunted two UEFA accountants whom has been involved in setting up FFP, after they joined us UEFA changed the rules.

Does anyone know if these two are sill employed by MCFC or CFG?

 

[Ban-jani]

If it’s reduced to 1 year, I can actually see Pep extending for 2 more years to try and win the CL with us.

I can’t see him wanting to leave without it.

Just a side thought, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world but agree we should be pushing all the way to winning outright.

 

[OB1]

Can't believe I will be 46. I certainly feel old.

Aged 20 years in last four months!

Would love to go back in time machine to have seen those bastards relegated.

I was there but I think 46 is young so swings and roundabouts.

 

[Marvin]

Right or wrong, I have consistently felt the non-cooperation charge is irrelevant. If CAS finds for UEFA on the principal issues they are such serious matters that non-cooperation is a minor but ultimately irrelevant aggravating factor. If CAS finds for City, there is no way (IMO) that it makes any meaningful sanction based on a wholly subjective "non-cooperation" charge. We know, for example, that City made substantial submissions and it is very hard to show that this was "non-cooperation".

it may not be the crux of the case against us but from the outside it appears to support City's claim that the UEFA process was prejudicial. City have already been sanctioned, and we face a 2nd review for a sponsorship that most reasonable football people would agree is fair value, and on top of that they say we didn't co-operate. Some trial.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I was there but I think 46 is young so swings and roundabouts.

They say you are only as young as the person you feel - so that makes me 42 thanks to the wife!!!

 

[mayo31]

This, in my opinion, is an fair way to think about the current ffp (CAS) situation but to me it is not what guides my thinking. For me, it is about the principle of the honesty of the club‘s top people. I totally believe them when they say that the club has done nothing wrong and that if the facts (and only the facts) are used to determine the CAS outcome we will be totally exonerated. If the CAS decision does not totally absolve us from any wrong doing, I expect the club to take it to the highest legal court. If we do not, then the principle of the club’s honesty will have been broken AND once broken can never again be mended.
The club’s top hierarchy have put their reputations on the line and I hope that my belief in their integrity is not damaged in any way. I am sure that my belief will be sustained in the days, months and years to come. I have been a city supporter for well over 50 years but this is a (THE) watershed moment for me.

Are the people currently in charge or the present owners the club?

To me they are not, the fans are the club, the badge is the club.

If they have lied these people that are now in charge they can fuck off out of the club for me.

Not that they would plus is the Shiek involved, they will say he is not so simply new people will be put in charge to run the club

Personally, whatever the outcome I am City and always will be. I will still go to the games, support and defend the club.

 

[WRicko]

I don’t want to sound like the idiot fans of other clubs who say we have cooked the books or are committing money laundering. But how can CAS punish us without a criminal investigation ? I know it’s was suggested that there is no public interest (rival clubs would disagree) and if we have done what’s alleged we have actually given the tax man more money not less but we have non the less fiddled the books. The fact this case is major news but nothing is happening in the criminal sense surely makes it likely we will win at CAS. Can it even be a sort of defense ? Am I missing something ? Heck the press who have gone after us haven’t even suggested we are criminals perhaps they to know we haven’t done anything wrong

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

I don’t want to sound like the idiot fans of other clubs who say we have cooked the books or are committing money laundering. But how can CAS punish us without a criminal investigation ? I know it’s was suggested that there is no public interest (rival clubs would disagree) and if we have done what’s alleged we have actually given the tax man more money not less but we have non the less fiddled the books. The fact this case is major news but nothing is happening in the criminal sense surely makes it likely we will win at CAS. Can it even be a sort of defense ? Am I missing something ? Heck the press who have gone after us haven’t even suggested we are criminals perhaps they to know we haven’t done anything wrong

What on earth makes you think that there should be a criminal investigation?
There has never been an accusation that we've broken any law be it a tax law or otherwise.
You need to understand that FFP offences are only breaches in the rules of a sporting body that runs a competition, they are not breaches in law.

 

[SilverFox2]

SilverFox2. In regards to the question that you posed. If you try and evade paying your income tax that is illegal. However if you try to avoid paying for income tax that is o.k.thanks

That's why you don't have to declare your ISA interest on your tax return.

Thanks for the post. I am aware of the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance but since UEFA often use the phrase "the spirit of the rule" I was unclear if they recognise this distinction and hoped for legal opinion on te subject.

 

[shevtheblue]

FWIW the settlement agreement expressly stated we made no admission in respect of the breaches

"[The Settlement Agreement] specifies that MCFC did not admit to be in breach of the UEFA CL&FFPR." para 6 of https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_6298_internet.pdf

Very interesting. I noted a specific section about what the IC were allowed to investigate on, being 2016-18 & 2017-2018. From this my understanding is that City are saying in the previous settlement agreement it was specified that UEFA could not re-investigate the periods up to end the of the 2016 reporting period. It states the IC's decision is City have been released from the settlement agreement, i don't know if that means that UEFA have gone against the terms of the decision so City are now free to release/use any information that was to be witheld following that settlement, or that UEFA have actually said 'you are released from this so we can now investigate you'. I think it may be the former, in which case we may have had some interesting evidence to show CAS that was agreed in the settlement never to be disclosed. In that article it says as part of that initial settlement, City did not agree they have breached UEFA's rules, so whatever is in the settlement must have been quite tasty:

The IC exceeded its jurisdiction in making the Referral Decision. The
Referral Decision makes no allegations concerning the reporting
periods 2016-17 and 2017-18, which are the only periods that it had
jurisdiction to review (and on which it stated that its Investigation was
focused). The IC has no jurisdiction to make determinations on matters
relating to any earlier point in time:
(a) breaches alleged against MCFC before the 2016-2017 reporting
period are covered by the Settlement Agreement. The IC does not
have jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the 2014
Settlement Agreement because:
(i) the Settlement Agreement created a bespoke “Settlement
Regime” covering the entirety of the periods referred to in
the Referral Decision, including to the end of the reporting
period 2015-2016;
(ii) in any event, the IC has issued a decision through which
MCFC has been formally released from the Settlement
Agreement and the Settlement Regime;
(b) the IC is time-barred from reopening the proceedings that were
concluded by the Settlement Agreement and letter of release;
(c) all breaches alleged against MCFC more than five years prior to
the communication of the Referral Decision to the AC are timebarred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules, which
CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 12
prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five
years ago; and
(d) in any event, the temporal jurisdiction of the IC is limited to the
current “monitoring period” and, specifically, the “reporting
periods” 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

 

[Gazza]

Very interesting. I noted a specific section about what the IC were allowed to investigate on, being 2016-18 & 2017-2018. From this my understanding is that City are saying in the previous settlement agreement it was specified that UEFA could not re-investigate the periods up to end the of the 2016 reporting period. It states the IC's decision is City have been released from the settlement agreement, i don't know if that means that UEFA have gone against the terms of the decision so City are now free to release/use any information that was to be witheld following that settlement, or that UEFA have actually said 'you are released from this so we can now investigate you'. I think it may be the former, in which case we may have had some interesting evidence to show CAS that was agreed in the settlement never to be disclosed. In that article it says as part of that initial settlement, City did not agree they have breached UEFA's rules, so whatever is in the settlement must have been quite tasty:

The IC exceeded its jurisdiction in making the Referral Decision. The
Referral Decision makes no allegations concerning the reporting
periods 2016-17 and 2017-18, which are the only periods that it had
jurisdiction to review (and on which it stated that its Investigation was
focused). The IC has no jurisdiction to make determinations on matters
relating to any earlier point in time:
(a) breaches alleged against MCFC before the 2016-2017 reporting
period are covered by the Settlement Agreement. The IC does not
have jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the 2014
Settlement Agreement because:
(i) the Settlement Agreement created a bespoke “Settlement
Regime” covering the entirety of the periods referred to in
the Referral Decision, including to the end of the reporting
period 2015-2016;
(ii) in any event, the IC has issued a decision through which
MCFC has been formally released from the Settlement
Agreement and the Settlement Regime;
(b) the IC is time-barred from reopening the proceedings that were
concluded by the Settlement Agreement and letter of release;
(c) all breaches alleged against MCFC more than five years prior to
the communication of the Referral Decision to the AC are timebarred by virtue of Article 37 of the Procedural Rules, which
CAS 2019/A/6298 Manchester City FC v. UEFA - Page 12
prohibits prosecution of any breach that took place more than five
years ago; and
(d) in any event, the temporal jurisdiction of the IC is limited to the
current “monitoring period” and, specifically, the “reporting
periods” 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

I think you need to do a dumbed down version for all us tripeheads on here.

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

What on earth makes you think that there should be a criminal investigation?
There has never been an accusation that we've broken any law be it a tax law or otherwise.
You need to understand that FFP offences are only breaches in the rules of a sporting body that runs a competition, they are not breaches in law.

Precisely. Which makes it all the more galling that Bayern Munich try to portray themselves as morally superior to us.

 

[shevtheblue]

I think you need to do a dumbed down version for all us tripeheads on here.

That would include me. Patiently waiting for ProjectRiver to tell us idiots what this all means!

If the settlement from before 2016 specifically says those periods can't be re-investigated or looked into and UEFA are actually looking into those exact periods, as it kind of suggests in the document, then i assume we would legally have a challenge there. But i know fuck all about law and i suppose it's hard to distinguish for anyone without being able to see the specifics of the settlement.

 

[Gazza]

That would include me. Patiently waiting for ProjectRiver to tell us idiots what this all means!

If the settlement from before 2016 specifically says those periods can't be re-investigated or looked into and UEFA are actually looking into those exact periods, as it kind of suggests in the document, then i assume we would legally have a challenge there. But i know fuck all about law and i suppose it's hard to distinguish for anyone without being able to see the specifics of the settlement.

We could do with a flow chart - If this happens >>then this will happen or this will happen.
I'll leave that with you and check back for your resulting chart later ;-)

 

[WRicko]

What on earth makes you think that there should be a criminal investigation?
There has never been an accusation that we've broken any law be it a tax law or otherwise.
You need to understand that FFP offences are only breaches in the rules of a sporting body that runs a competition, they are not breaches in law.

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these