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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the time has come for the owners to get less appeasing and go full on dirty in this. They have the wealth and influence to start fucking up uefa and all the big clubs. You want to fuck with us? Okay let’s bring it all down. There is no way we are clean in all of this but power corrupts, let’s threaten to show all their corruption and see who caves first.
 
Why wouldn’t you release it a few days before the final game or weeks before the end of the season?
Then you could potentially derail our title win.
Then banning second placed team from champions league is much easier than banning league winners.
Sure its less of a story
Because it's more high profile to drop these accusations on the champions the day after they win,it discredits the win i everyones eyes
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned but what is the burden of proof in CAS?

So in our criminal system a person is presumed innocent unless proved beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

In English civil law as far as I'm aware the burden of proof is ""preponderance of the evidence", which is far easier to prove.

Do any legal eagles on here know what the burden of proof in CAS is?

Its a civil court so I'd assume balance of probabilities.
 
I remain convinced that this isn't going to go anywhere. UEFA's rushed response speaks volumes.

Firstly, the evidence that Der Spiegel has been acquired appears to have been done so illegally. The individual Rui Pinto is accused of illegally obtaining information by “extortion, violation of secrecy and illegally accessing information”. This would not count as admissible evidence in a court of law. Additionally, there is no conclusive, definitive "smoking gun" that wrongdoing has been 'committed' (i.e. an invoice) other than emails showing a level of 'intent' by club figures.

Secondly, all of the emails and evidence by Der Spiegel date from 2014 or before. UEFA's FFP regulations state that no action can be brought 4 years after the alleged impropriety. Many countries have a 6 year limitation period and any case is statute barred.

Thirdly, Rick Parry, Liverpool executive from 1999 to 2007 is on the investigatory chamber of UEFA financial body. There is a clear conflict of interest that undermines UEFA's case if it went to court. It's like having a past chief executive of Lufhansa on a supposed independent investigatory chambers ruling on Air France-KLM - it wouldn't be allowed. The Airports Commission had the chief executive of Manchester Airports Group on its board - they had no option to resign before the Supreme Court ruled in favour those who took it to a judicial review.

The nuclear option is for City to take UEFA to court and challenge FFP altogether with the aim of destroying as anti-competitive. City have played the 'softly softly' approach with UEFA - obviously they didn't like the fine and squad reduction in 2014 - but it suited City now they at the top and the 'door has closed' greatly to challengers from outside the top four/six as such.

My impression is that UEFA is running out of time - hence the "rush" to get this through - from what we understand City haven't even been consulted or had a right of response. If the individual who obtained the evidence illegally is convicted in Portugal, the evidence will not be admissible, and time is ticking on the allegations which appears to have or will have exceeded the limitation period in the coming months. Conversely, it's in City's interests to drag this out as long as possible as it strengthens their case in a court of law immensely.
 
Just a point on the evolution of rules for their intended meaning and their subsequent amendments.
The initial ruling found us slightly guilty but massively guilty when they tightened the rules.
Later the rules were massively relaxed because other Clubs had difficulty (Milam etc)'
Surely time has shown that the City investment Business Plan was in fact superior to the ffp rules guessed at by uefa?
Not really unexpected because our owners jjob involves investment so perhaps has more experience of investment phase volumes than uefa.

In other words surely because of City's progress, to cite our non compliance with incorrect investment restrictions is frankly a pedantic exercise in justifying a barrier to entry.
 
So glad City have finally come out with a strongly worded statement on this.

The leaks this week in particular are an absolute disgrace, and it’s UEFA who have brought the sport into disrepute.
 
How likely is a European ban? Anyone know?

And how did PSG get away with signing two 200 million pound players!
PSG didn't get away.

I'll explain it again.

PSG like City tried to inject some money into their club. However, Qatar was really straightforward when they just decided to put the QTA sponsorship with PSG : 200 M€ for nation branding. It was a new kind of sponsorship, never seen before. UEFA decided to value it at 100 M€ for their calculations.

PSG operates with that budget in mind and buys Neymar and Mbappé.

Then, immediately, UEFA launches an investigation (after the cries of Tebas, Barca, Real, Bayern, Juve, etc.) and decides that the different Qatari contracts are not fair value anymore (because they realized that with those values PSG could buy these types of players from the cartel) and devalue retroactively. Then PSG, instead of being in the green, has a big deficit over the 2015/2016/2017 FFP 3 year calculations.
PSG has 15 days to sell urgently (and at lesser cost) bench players. They managed to do so.
UEFA decides then that those fair values are not fair enough and need more devaluation and PSG win their appeal in CAS thanks to a technicality.

However, the period with Neymar/Mbappé will start to be included in FFP calculation from now. As a consequence, PSG will have to sell again this summer (before 30/07) and will buy afterwards. This is what clubs tight with FFP always do (sell before the end of the financial year and buy just after).
The good thing for PSG (that shows FFP is a joke as well) is that thanks to the investment in Mbappé and Neymar, they got a bigger profile worldwide, despite the mixed results in Champion Leagues. As a matter of fact, they got the Jordan brand deal (15 M+€), ALL main sponsor kit (60/75 M€), new Nike deal (75 M+€), Renault (4/5 M€), recently MHSC (1/2 M€), Unibet. And they are expecting more TV rights the year after when Media Pro money will come in ( starting in 2020/2021). Those deals should cover for the loss of QTA money and make those deals affordable for PSG. Nasser also said they are considering the naming of the Parc des Princes if an offer at an exceptional value was on the table (Accor has asked to be notified if PSG offers those naming right and the Paris municipality only allow a prefixe name like Accor Parc des Princes). PSG is also the club that gets the more money per seat in Europe (thanks to the high end lounges prices). The stadium capacity is a problem though.

All those sponsoring deals wouldn't have been possible without the initial investment (or financial doping) of the owners. So, how exactly is FFP "fair" when it doesn't allow clubs to be able to draw in those sponsoring and marketing deals ? PSG has become one of the best shirt sellers with more than 1 M this year.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.