UEFA FFP investigation - Other PL clubs appeal to CAS to prevent City playing in Europe (p 2581)

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

  1. west didsblue

    west didsblue

    2 Oct 2011
    Seems UEFA have dropped the charge that the sponsorship amount is unrealistic, presumably because it’s not significantly better or worse than other clubs deals, and have settled on how the sponsors have come up with their money. Would they also be interested in how Bet365 comes up with their money to sponsor Stoke with both organisations having the same owner? (Assuming Stoke were in the CL).
    The bottom line is that it’s fuck all to do with UEFA where Etihad gets its sponsorship budget from. It would be bizarre if there was a rule preventing owners’ other businesses from sponsoring their clubs but that seems to be the imaginary rule we’re being punished for.
    BluechesterCity likes this.
  2. Corky


    9 Dec 2005
    Yeah he/she didn't process any personal information without consent so there isn't a problem is there fatty?
  3. Colin Bell (genuine name)

    Colin Bell (genuine name)

    18 Dec 2017
    1. impossible to deny or disprove.
      "irrefutable evidence"

      In May 2019 City issued the following statement.

      Manchester City Football Club is disappointed, but regrettably not surprised, by the sudden announcement of the referral to be made by the CFCB IC Chief Investigator Yves Leterme.
      The leaks to media over the last week are indicative of the process that has been overseen by Mr. Leterme.

      Manchester City is entirely confident of a positive outcome when the matter is considered by an independent judicial body.

      The accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false and the CFCB IC referral ignores a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence provided by Manchester City FC to the Chamber.

      The decision contains mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process and there remain significant unresolved matters raised by Manchester City FC as part of what the Club has found to be a wholly unsatisfactory, curtailed, and hostile process.

      Then 2 days ago in relation to the ban

      Manchester City is disappointed but not surprised by today’s announcement by the UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber. The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position.
      In December 2018, the UEFA Chief Investigator publicly previewed the outcome and sanction he intended to be delivered to Manchester City, before any investigation had even begun. The subsequent flawed and consistently leaked UEFA process he oversaw has meant that there was little doubt in the result that he would deliver. The Club has formally complained to the UEFA Disciplinary body, a complaint which was validated by a CAS ruling.

      Simply put, this is a case initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA. With this prejudicial process now over, the Club will pursue an impartial judgment as quickly as possible and will therefore, in the first instance, commence proceedings with the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.

      It's not just that City will challenge the process with CAS but more so they will be given the chance to present their irrefutable evidence that they are entirely confident will result in a positive outcome.

      I have every confidence that City will be exonerated and that there will be a bloodbath at UEFA as a result.

  4. BluessinceHydeRoad


    26 Mar 2012
    In the Bosman case the European Commission did not back Bosman and effectively gave its support to UEFA. This made things rather more difficult for Bosman but not only did he win but the ECJ gave UEFA a blunt warning that all future cases would be decided by what the court considered lawful and not what UEFA considered best for football. The European Commission has recognised UEFA as the body competent to regulate football finance, but this was with the proviso that such regulation should be consistent with European competition law. Throughout the EU such law guarantees the right of investors to invest and prohibits any attempts to prevent or limit investment. There are exceptions to prevent the use of the investment to prevent or hinder technological innovation, but there is no sporting exception. UEFA's claims that FFP is to protect clubs from their owners and encourage financial stability don't apply at all. That the only source of income FFP wishes to limit is owner investment seems, to me, to raise the possibility of acting as a cartel, since UEFA are a commercial rival of the clubs but also because the influence of certain clubs on it is evident and UEFA withdrew from its initial concern with debt under the influence of these clubs at the time Sheikh Mansour bought our club. It is possible that ECJ might see some merit the argument that FFP stops ultra wealthy owners "buying" success and trophies but it is hard to bring any proof of effectiveness here, and it is hard to show that Sheikh Mansour's investment has done anything but good for City and it is hard to identify any harmful effects on the game. My view is that competition law does all it can to encourage investment: FFP sees it as a threat to the game and puts more limits on it than it does on a betting company to sponsor a football team!
    Dribble, KS55, sir baconface and 4 others like this.
  5. BlueRain


    28 Jun 2017
    Singing alone in the north stand ;)
    It's not an "imaginary rule" - it's a real rule about related party sponsorship...

    There are several arguements City could use (I'm no legal expert though)

    1. Etihad isn't owned by SM (our owner) but is owned by the Abu Dhabi government (not sure if it could still count as "related" though????)
    2. The leaked emails mention a "Royal Highness" but not by name, so they either think it's SM (see point 1) or they think it's the acutal ruler of Abu Dhabi (again see point 1)

    I think maybe this is the crux of City's defence - sure a wealthy person put some money into Etihad who just happened to pay us the same amount in sponsorship but can they prove WHO it was and how they are directly related to us as a "related party"?
  6. BillCarlisle Ex-Manchester

    BillCarlisle Ex-Manchester

    23 Sep 2010
    Exiled in Cumbria
    I mentioned this on another thread. Like it or not, Cricket is where it is today because of Kerry Packer. He had his faults, but he also had the vision to see that the sport was dying on it's feet. Maybe the time has come for something similar to happen in football ?
  7. PrezIke


    5 Sep 2013
    En Why? See.
    This was somehow suggested as plausible by Paul Wilson in his article today on the potential ramifications/fallout with UEFA that could lead to its demise.
  8. Saddleworth2


    27 Jan 2014
    The two statements are extremely consistent and that gives confidence. It really does smack of a great deal of mistrust from start to finish of the process. The club must win this. Biggest match we have had, for the soul of football.
  9. Pingu the Penguin

    Pingu the Penguin

    29 Sep 2009
    Thinking this through, the allegations suggest money came from Etihad and another source (as you say above, unidentified). The leaked emails are the source. If, in return, City can demonstrate through Etihad's accounts that the monies paid by Etihad tally with what we claimed then this is porbably why we are saying irrefutable. To refute the paper trail EUFA who have to allege that Eithad had falsified their accounts and have some proof beyond the hacked emails for this which, I presume, would be a very tall order for them.

    I'm feeling more confident now.

    The only missing link for me is why things heated up so easy (slap on wrist to a 2 year ban). I was kind of wondering what had changed. The only thing I can think of is the Messi rumours?
    John Wayne and BluechesterCity like this.
  10. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    29 Jun 2009
    by the pool
    Fatty? The only way you could have mislabelled me more would have been to say I had a shit mullet. I’d give you ten grand if you had a lower body fat percentage than me.

    And tell me, how did Clevers saying he was posting in Liverpool break GDPR, point me out the specific clauses.

    You’ve had a fucking mate son and should have simply slunk away as per.
    Rammy Blue likes this.

Share This Page