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 reason it is so quiet is that whoever leaked the original "guilt" and recommended ban has been absolutely bollocked and the place is in lockdown.
 
I think the reason it is so quiet is that whoever leaked the original "guilt" and recommended ban has been absolutely bollocked and the place is in lockdown.
When(not if) CAS recommends to UEFA that this gets thrown out I'm hoping to see some heads roll(ohhh, human rights abuses) although what will more likely happen will be somebody 'leaving' UEFA for another cushy number.
 
Exactly. Their internal enquiry, which I'm sure we are demanding as part of our appeal, will be inconclusive but they will "know" and so will we.

They've got a bit of a problem in that they are never going to say publicly who leaked it which means an internal enquiry has to prove inconclusive. But, from experience, that means that a) information control is shown to be lax, an evidential issue in its own right or b) there's a lack of integrity at senior levels in the organisation, or, more specifically, in the investigative part of the organisation. Unless shown, otherwise, of course, it could be both.

And all this because some giddy fucker couldn't contain their excitement. Delicious.
 
Exactly. Their internal enquiry, which I'm sure we are demanding as part of our appeal, will be inconclusive but they will "know" and so will we.

They've got a bit of a problem in that they are never going to say publicly who leaked it which means an internal enquiry has to prove inconclusive. But, from experience, that means that a) information control is shown to be lax, an evidential issue in its own right or b) there's a lack of integrity at senior levels in the organisation, or, more specifically, in the investigative part of the organisation. Unless shown, otherwise, of course, it could be both.

And all this because some giddy fucker couldn't contain their excitement. Delicious.
Thanks for that view.
How do journos get away with not revealing their sources when brought to Court?
 
Exactly. Their internal enquiry, which I'm sure we are demanding as part of our appeal, will be inconclusive but they will "know" and so will we.

They've got a bit of a problem in that they are never going to say publicly who leaked it which means an internal enquiry has to prove inconclusive. But, from experience, that means that a) information control is shown to be lax, an evidential issue in its own right or b) there's a lack of integrity at senior levels in the organisation, or, more specifically, in the investigative part of the organisation. Unless shown, otherwise, of course, it could be both.

And all this because some giddy fucker couldn't contain their excitement. Delicious.
UEFA will just parry it away. (Arf arf)
 
Admittedly the reporting organ(what an apt word) was the sun 'newspaper' but the following was reported on 12/06/2019, I won't include a link(sorry Ric):-

So, if the hold up is not CAS as this is suggesting then by default it must be UEFA. My next question is; why have they not sentence us? There can only be one reason as far as I can see and that is - if they convict us and are found to be in the wrong then watch out courts here we come and I hope UEFA have a lot of money in the bank.
 
So, if the hold up is not CAS as this is suggesting then by default it must be UEFA. My next question is; why have they not sentence us? There can only be one reason as far as I can see and that is - if they convict us and are found to be in the wrong then watch out courts here we come and I hope UEFA have a lot of money in the bank.
Simply because of the leaks in the past, whether they’re true or not;
We’re attacking their process not the verdict, and a guilty verdict was leaked ages ago, if they delivered that they’d be fucked.
And as @Newman Noggs alluded to; they’re probably doing an internal enquiry on their decision process at ours and CAS’ behest they’d be mental to deliver any verdict in the midst of that
 
According to the Times...


One of Uefa’s financial fair play investigators has resigned over the organisation’s handling of its case against Paris Saint Germain.

Petros Mavroidis, a Greek law professor, is understood to be unhappy that Uefa did not mount a defence in the Court of Arbitration for Sport after PSG’s lawyers claimed that the Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body’s (CFCB) adjudicatory panel had missed a ten-day deadline to review the case.

Mavroidis is also believed to have questioned the handling of the FFP case against AC Milan, despite the Italian side being excluded from European competition this season.

Uefa has since changed the wording of its FFP rules to ensure that other clubs do not use the same loophole in the future. Galatasaray, the Turkish club, had already…

Sorry it stops there, but the rest is behind a paywall.

Interesting..
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...er-treatment-of-paris-saint-germain-wr5vz29n5

Here's the full text of that Times article.

One of Uefa’s financial fair play investigators has resigned over the organisation’s handling of its case against Paris Saint Germain.

Petros Mavroidis, a Greek law professor, is understood to be unhappy that Uefa did not mount a defence in the Court of Arbitration for Sport after PSG’s lawyers claimed that the Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body’s (CFCB) adjudicatory panel had missed a ten-day deadline to review the case.

Mavroidis is also believed to have questioned the handling of the FFP case against AC Milan, despite the Italian side being excluded from European competition this season.

Uefa has since changed the wording of its FFP rules to ensure that other clubs do not use the same loophole in the future. Galatasaray, the Turkish club, had already won a CAS ruling on the ten-day deadline – Uefa did not defend that case on the advice of its lawyers and the CFCB’s investigatory chamber, nor the following case brought by PSG in March this year.

Uefa’s initial investigation was to examine whether PSG had flouted rules aimed at preventing clubs from spending more than they generate through revenues. The French club have previously been sanctioned by Uefa for breaching FFP rules, in 2014 when Manchester City were given the same penalty.

City are also involved in a new FFP case which has yet to be ruled on – proceedings were opened after leaked emails suggested the club had provided misleading financial information. City have gone to CAS to challenge the legitimacy of Uefa’s investigation.

Mavroidis, who is also a professor at Columbia Law School in New York, was due to step down as an investigator at the end of the season anyway as his term was up. It is believed he was unhappy with the approaches to both the Galatasaray and the PSG hearings.

Mavroidis refused to comment to The Times, saying: “I would not like to speak in public about my involvement with a Uefa committee.”

In June 2018, the CFCB’s investigatory panel had recommended that Uefa close an investigation into PSG’s finances in the three years running up to the summer of 2017, before the club signed Neymar and Kylian Mbappe. That recommendation was not unanimous however, with some of the investigators including Mavroidis believing the panel should have recommended opening proceedings.

In September, the CFCB adjudicatory panel reviewed the PSG decision and said it should go back for further investigation – the court ruled however that was outside a ten-day deadline for a review stated in the rules.

Since the outcome of the CAS hearing, Uefa has clarified its rules so that the adjudicatory panel now has 10 days to call in a case and 20 days to review it.

Uefa has since said that it has no existing investigations open against PSG. All clubs in European competition have to show they are breaking even over a rolling three-year period.

In its ruling on PSG in March, CAS said: “The review conducted by the adjudicatory chamber should have taken place within ten days and that since the challenged decision was issued beyond the ten-day time limit, the challenged decision was untimely and must be annulled.”
 
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.