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

[MillionMilesAway]

Horse trading will ensue bud, that's my gut feeling anyway.

Yes, I've said before that if City win, they'll want a chair at the top table (or something).

 

[Gordyola]

I think the answer is no liability whatsoever.

The UEFA CFCB Procedural Rules state “Members of the CFCB are not liable for any action, decision or failure to act in
connection with proceedings before the CFCB.”

https://it.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Unless there’s a way around that. I’m assuming that means we can sue UEFA as a body, but not specific individuals within the two chambers?

One can sue whoever one wants to, only proviso is deep pockets, any clause is only good once tested in law

 

[Centurions]

Is that indisputable fact? I've never seen it reported as such.

I am relying on arguments here that people like PB have posted.

It's explained here. I am afraid its lengthy but you can probably skim read it to get the idea.

https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/

A slightly easier comparison is from Swiss Ramble.

 

[dickie davies]

Hmmm. 306 posts in 13 years

You should read them before making any raggy accusations

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Whilst we're speculating, I"m interested in this newly-embraced and much-touted concept that the rules may be corrupt but we "signed up to them" so it doesn't matter.

Setting aside the idea that you can compete in football without CL money, I'd love to see the "contract" we "signed" up to. Presumably there is some sort of contractual obligation on UEFA to administer the competition and its processes fairly. Even if there isn"t, it would surely be implicit given the required trust between the parties.

Proven breach of that agreement by UEFA would be an interesting situation given that we know the size of the financial penalties UEFA would like to impose on us. And that's before you start on the other financial implications.

I had this discussion with an Arsenal supporting, intelligent, well-read family member.
I did explain to him that both signatories of an agreement need to comply with it, and UEFA had patently not.
He asked me what I meant by that, and I simply asked him which set of rules applied, that we should adhere to.
Was it the set that assured us of passing in the first place , or the set that applied after we had submitted the accounts that moved the goal-posts to ensure failure, or was it the set that now allows owner investment of the type for which we being accused?
He was a bit shocked - he had no idea of any of this, just like the consumers of the crap now being fed to them. It’s no wonder that people believe the worst about us.

 

[laserblue]

You are conflating the IC and the AC's processes. Even if the IC failed to give any consideration to City's submissions, City had another opportunity to make submissions to the AC. The idea that both refused to consider any submissions made is just not right. In short, we will have to do much much better than that to prevail.

You may be right simply because none of us knows for sure at this stage but I wouldn't put anything past a corrupt process run by a corrupt organisation like UEFA. Just look at some of the reported facts about the bias and corruption involved in the case:

• In December 2018 - three months before the start of the IC investigation - UEFA's Chief Investigator Yves Leterme publicly stated that City would be found guilty and banned from the Champions League. This proves that the case was pre-judged (irrespective of any evidence from City whether read or unread) and is one of City's main grievances in their appeal to CAS.
  
• In a flagrant case of conflict of interest the IC panel included Rick Parry, ex-CEO of Liverpool and self confessed lifelong Liverpool supporter.
• While the investigation was still in progress there were several leaks from someone within UEFA to the New York Times and Associated Press confirming that City would be found guilty and banned. Tariq Panja of the NYT has admitted the leaks came from within UEFA but of course won't name his source.

 

[TFC]

Fuck me, in a shocking twist of events, I see Ewar Woowar has come out in support of UEFA. What a fucking whopper.

 

[nmc]

City did not agree to the change in the way that players contracted prior to 2010 were treated under FFP. We were reporting under the FFP regulations and at he last moment UEFA changed it's own rules.

This is what City mean by context. None of the journalists have presented this argument. That would be balanced. They don't do that.

That unfortunately reflects the present newspaper industry in the UK where proprietors use their newspapers to drive specific messages and themes - facts, balance and truth were sacrificed many years ago. You only had to read Good Times Bad Times by Harold Evans to see the immediate impact Murdoch had at the Times and how he twisted and manipulated the whole organisation. 40 years on I suggest its got a lot worse.

 

[nmc]

You may be right simply because none of us knows for sure at this stage but I wouldn't put anything past a corrupt process run by a corrupt organisation like UEFA. Just look at some of the reported facts about the bias and corruption involved in the case:

• In December 2018 - three months before the start of the IC investigation - UEFA's Chief Investigator Yves Leterme publicly stated that City would be found guilty and banned from the Champions League. This proves that the case was pre-judged (irrespective of any evidence from City whether read or unread) and is one of City's main grievances in their appeal to CAS.
  
• In a flagrant case of conflict of interest the IC panel included Rick Parry, ex-CEO of Liverpool and self confessed lifelong Liverpool supporter.
• While the investigation was still in progress there were several leaks from someone within UEFA to the New York Times and Associated Press confirming that City would be found guilty and banned. Tariq Panja of the NYT has admitted the leaks came from within UEFA but of course won't name his source.

The three points you have made are all material as to why we may not have received a fair hearing - although it is for CAS to decide. Interestingly CAS referred the case back to UEFA and decided not to make a judgement but these three points were still in play but clearly CAS could not rule on whether we’d received a fair hearing until a judgement was passed down. It does look like UEFA think that CAS has dismissed our concerns re the process and issued what can only be seen as an unprecedented sanction. I think the actions and behaviours of UEFA in the last 2 weeks suggest that we have probably not received a fair hearing... the hearing was probably pre judged and some of those on the AC were certainly conflicted and pre disposed to issuing a punishment. I honestly think a decent QC (and we’ve got the best) will rip the process deployed to pieces and may do so in pre case hearings and document exchanges to the extent that UEFA - or at least their lawyers will know the process won’t stand up to scrutiny. For example Freshfields will no doubt be asking for notes of declared conflicts of interests etc at UEFA - asking for all emails from all AC members that make any reference to City or ADUG. There will be a right data search going on and with a cesspit like UEFA it won’t take long for the cracks to appear.

 

[blueparrot]

The three points you have made are all material as to why we may not have received a fair hearing - although it is for CAS to decide. Interestingly CAS referred the case back to UEFA and decided not to make a judgement but these three points were still in play but clearly CAS could not rule on whether we’d received a fair hearing until a judgement was passed down. It does look like UEFA think that CAS has dismissed our concerns re the process and issued what can only be seen as an unprecedented sanction. I think the actions and behaviours of UEFA in the last 2 weeks suggest that we have probably not received a fair hearing... the hearing was probably pre judged and some of those on the AC were certainly conflicted and pre disposed to issuing a punishment. I honestly think a decent QC (and we’ve got the best) will rip the process deployed to pieces and may do so in pre case hearings and document exchanges to the extent that UEFA - or at least their lawyers will know the process won’t stand up to scrutiny. For example Freshfields will no doubt be asking for notes of declared conflicts of interests etc at UEFA - asking for all emails from all AC members that make any reference to City or ADUG. There will be a right data search going on and with a cesspit like UEFA it won’t take long for the cracks to appear.