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

[SWP's back]

First time poster. Season ticket holder and long time reader.

We are in very very very good hands for this appeal. Obviously the stakes are high, but we have the best possible representation and that puts us in a great position. We effectively have the legal equivalent of a Vincent Kompany and Sergio Aguero combination to take on UEFA, and I hope we take it to them with gusto!

I have published an article expanding on this in more detail if anyone is interested -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manchester-city-fc-vs-uefa-most-important-case-millennium-joshua-levy

Great article. Thanks.

 

[KS55]

There was a good point in that blog by Stefan which said it was in everyone's interest: City, UEFA, and CAS to get a quick decision because a delay would increase the chances of legal action from other clubs who believed they had a claim on CL places. They want to avoid disrupting the CL even more than it has already been disrupted by the pandemic. That does seem to make sense so I wouldn't be surprised by quick action.
EDIT: I see Projectriver is now saying mid August for a decision and I wouldn't disagree with that.

August might be too late. In that case there may be an interim judgement suspending the ban.

 

[nmc]

First time poster. Season ticket holder and long time reader.

We are in very very very good hands for this appeal. Obviously the stakes are high, but we have the best possible representation and that puts us in a great position. We effectively have the legal equivalent of a Vincent Kompany and Sergio Aguero combination to take on UEFA, and I hope we take it to them with gusto!

I have published an article expanding on this in more detail if anyone is interested -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manchester-city-fc-vs-uefa-most-important-case-millennium-joshua-levy

Great post thank you. Look forward to any future snippets. Spot the bitter Australian Dipper in the comments. Sad fucker.

 

[spider blue]

First time poster. Season ticket holder and long time reader.

We are in very very very good hands for this appeal. Obviously the stakes are high, but we have the best possible representation and that puts us in a great position. We effectively have the legal equivalent of a Vincent Kompany and Sergio Aguero combination to take on UEFA, and I hope we take it to them with gusto!

I have published an article expanding on this in more detail if anyone is interested -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manchester-city-fc-vs-uefa-most-important-case-millennium-joshua-levy

Thanks for a great post, all of a sudden I feel positive about the outcome, looking forward to reading your next post.

 

[projectriver]

I hope this question makes sense

I think it's certain City's opening argument will be that UEFA haven't followed their own procedures and this will be followed by the rest of City's evidence
When the panel withdraw to consider, if City are correct on the procedural argument and that is enough to have the ban and fine overturned, will the panel still consider all the other evidence even though it's now null and void!
What I'm asking is, if CAS agree with City on UEFA's failure on procedure, could we have a decision in a couple of days?

Very unlikely. Everything will be heard. And the procedural argument is unlikely to work anyway as CAS is considered the fix for any procedural issues.

Limitation periods are not procedural deficiencies though.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

i really hope we smash this but i have a horrid feeling we won't.

 

[HelloCity]

I just clicked on the item and it loaded.

Cool story bro.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

First time poster. Season ticket holder and long time reader.

We are in very very very good hands for this appeal. Obviously the stakes are high, but we have the best possible representation and that puts us in a great position. We effectively have the legal equivalent of a Vincent Kompany and Sergio Aguero combination to take on UEFA, and I hope we take it to them with gusto!

I have published an article expanding on this in more detail if anyone is interested -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/manchester-city-fc-vs-uefa-most-important-case-millennium-joshua-levy

I've just seen this but read your article last night. Good article and I've responded, with pretty well what I put on here a short while ago.

 

[projectriver]

I'd imagine the sequence of events would be something like:

1. Did UEFA have the right, under their own rules, to re-open the case?
2. Did UEFA have the right, under the 2014 settlement agrement, to re-open the case?
3. If the answer to both the above is 'Yes', then did they correctly follow their own procedural rules for judging this issue?
4. Was the IC judgement made impartially after consideration of all available evidence or was there any impropriety in arriving at that decision?
5. Did the AC follow their prescribed procedural rules in reacing their decision to confirm the decision of the IC or was there any interference in the supposedly independent body?
6. Were we given the opportunity to present ourr side of events at all stages?
7. Does UEFA's case against us have any merit on the basis of the evidence available?

• We will presumably argue strongly that the decisions in 1 & 2 were incorrect and had no legal basis
• I suspect we have something to prove the process in 4 & possibly 5 was flawed. I also reckon we've got our sights heavily on Leterme here, plus we may well have some evidence that there was pressure from some of the G-14 and/or members of the Exco brought to bear to ensure our punishment was as harsh as possible.
• We may well argue that we weren't given sufficient opportunity to present our defence to the CFCB.
• We will presumably argue quite strongly that we haven't broken any rules and that UEFA's evdence, via Der Spiegel, is circumstantial and paints a completely false picture of the situation.

We could win on every one of those points but even winning on one could be enough to see the ban overturned.

I agree broadly with the order and the questions at 1 and 2. There is also a question of limitation and whether the breaches (even if proved) are timed out (that may be what your 1. means). All of 3-6 is irrelevant because of the well established principle in CAS jurisprudence that even if there were any procedural failings in arriving at the AC's decision, the nature of CAS proceedings cures all procedural defects in lower decisions (eg "Right to a fair hearing. As to the complaints about the fairness of the process before the UEFA CDB and the UEFA Appeals Body, it is long and well established in CAS jurisprudence that even if there were any procedural failings (which is denied) the de novo nature of CAS proceedings cures all procedural defects in lower instances." (https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/CASdecisions/02/47/25/28/2472528_DOWNLOAD.pdf p31) and "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 p1))

In English - if UEFA is not barred from considering those breaches and if the settlement agreement is not binding on those breaches, then the key question is whether those breaches are proved or even provable. And then if proved (in CAS), was the punishment proportionate etc. In short, forget the procedural stuff.

I still want to understand how UEFA can prove City's audited accounts are false in a hearing of this stature. It is a very serious allegation that would ordinarily require very detailed evaluation by a court.

 

[nmc]

I'd imagine the sequence of events would be something like:

1. Did UEFA have the right, under their own rules, to re-open the case?
2. Did UEFA have the right, under the 2014 settlement agrement, to re-open the case?
3. If the answer to both the above is 'Yes', then did they correctly follow their own procedural rules for judging this issue?
4. Was the IC judgement made impartially after consideration of all available evidence or was there any impropriety in arriving at that decision?
5. Did the AC follow their prescribed procedural rules in reacing their decision to confirm the decision of the IC or was there any interference in the supposedly independent body?
6. Were we given the opportunity to present ourr side of events at all stages?
7. Does UEFA's case against us have any merit on the basis of the evidence available?

• We will presumably argue strongly that the decisions in 1 & 2 were incorrect and had no legal basis
• I suspect we have something to prove the process in 4 & possibly 5 was flawed. I also reckon we've got our sights heavily on Leterme here, plus we may well have some evidence that there was pressure from some of the G-14 and/or members of the Exco brought to bear to ensure our punishment was as harsh as possible.
• We may well argue that we weren't given sufficient opportunity to present our defence to the CFCB.
• We will presumably argue quite strongly that we haven't broken any rules and that UEFA's evdence, via Der Spiegel, is circumstantial and paints a completely false picture of the situation.

We could win on every one of those points but even winning on one could be enough to see the ban overturned.

I think our legal team will want to understand the process the IC went through given the time constraint they were working to. Additionally, did the constraints placed on the IC in terms of a ridiculously short time period to undertake such a complex investigation have an impact on the AC?. I.e. what impact did a flawed or rushed IC process have on the AC process. There must be a record of what the IC passed to the AC at the end of their investigation? Going to be very hard for UEFA to demonstrate that they followed an objective and transparent process - at best they will argue that the AC did part of the ICs role (If the AC claim they looked at everything including our dossier then they will have drifted into investigatory territory because there’s no way the info passed to them from the IC could be complete or definitive) but that will be contrary to their process and procedure and will undermine why the investigation is conducted separately from the judgement.