Manchester City banned from CL for 2 seasons and fined 30 million euros | CAS - Ban lifted, fined 10 million

[Infra-red]

Am I wrong in thinking that the sponsorship deal in question, and the original documents relating to it, date from 2010 - so with five year deadline in the UEFA rules, anything relating to that would have been ruled inadmissible? So the CAS weren't actually considering the substance of the allegations at all in reaching their verdict? Well, that all seems fine……..

We don't know at this point. All we know is that CAS considered most of the alleged breaches either time-barred or unproven (we don't know the ratio of time-barred to unproven).

Obviously, if all of the alleged breaches were time-barred, CAS did not need to consider the substance of any of them.

 

[cyberman]

CAS have said we are not guilty, you can take digs but that's their verdict. I don't know how that doesn't sink in. Not guilty means not guilty,

Being completely honest I've said on here many times I thought we were guilty as sin but I'm not part of CAS nor does my opinion both before and after this morning matter. I also don't know the details that they do (nor do I know the law as well). I can only take the decision on here and say "Hey I was wrong", same as you.

Have they actually said you aren't guilty?
Whats the fine for?

 

[BobbyManc]

To believe this, you would need to believe that Citys owner accidentally lumped all of the money he was investing into City into one bank transfer by accident. Despite the fact it was supposed to come from various companies as sponsorship, companies which he also owns.

The levels of dodgy are off the scale here. It is like Inception with the various layers.

No, to believe this, I only need to believe the headline of the CAS verdict which quite clearly states what you allege is not true. City's owner did not disguise equity funding as sponsorships. I guarantee that when the CAS judgement is fully released it will reveal that City provided evidence that comprehensively refuted that allegation. This is not 'time-barred', this is CAS stating that it simply did not appear to be true. They must have been shown evidence to the contrary, not simply a lack of evidence in its favour.

 

[Pretzels81]

Revolting corrupt oil money plastic club.

 

[AshamanKingpin]

It's terribly worded... I may know nothing about legal stuff, but I work with press releases as part of my job everyday, and a good press release is headline or two, and then the rest of the statement backs up /enforces that headline(s) .

The body of this press release does nothing to back up that statement and instead says things to question it - like the part that I quoted - which DOES mention things either being time barred or unable to be proven.

Also the CAS and UEFA investigations were totally different... UEFA wanted info to enforce /build their case, whilst CAS would only require info based on what UEFA had. Surely you can see the cooperation with CAS would require a different type/level of involvement?

This totally gets away from my original point, which is that UEFA will find it nearly impossible to prosecute any club of breaching FFP from now on as clubs won't fully cooperate with their investigations going forward (unless they change the rules that force them to do so - which might happen)

Yup, let them do that to close the loopholes but don’t impose find and bans arbitrarily without evidence. Either find a way to compel disclosure of the information you need or drop the case for insufficient evidence and improve your ability to oversee clubs But you undermine your own impartiality and legitimacy when your judgment is thrown out for these type of reasons. Are you telling me professional lawyers that UEFA must have under retainment couldn’t determine the statue of limitations had expired on some of the claims?! Just smacks of incompetence and bias.

 

[padr81]

You were only found not guilty due to the allegations being time barred. You are guilty but have escaped justice on a technicality. It's complete stupidity on UEFA's part to institute the 5 year limit.

There is something strange in all this though. I've had Berties at work banging on for years about how the CL doesn't matter & it's all about the PL. They are ecstatic at the moment now they've been allowed back in. Go figure.

Again... you have no proof until the entire thing comes out. They said allegations were either unproven or time barred. This means the allegations that weren't time barred were not proven true because of lack of evidence (backed up by Uefa) and we don't even know if they looked at the truth of the time barred ones. As far as we know (so far anyway) CAS have not found City breaching any FFP rules (whether we were found in breach of certain ones that were then time barred or more likelyr certain ones were timed barred and never looked at means we've not been proven guilty) Not proven guilty = innocent according to those making judgement.

I think you'll find most City fans are delighted because were we found guilty by CAS we could well have ended up in League 2 or Championship because the Premier League would be forced to take action. The club had a ton on the line that was more than CL qualification.

 

[TrustInOle]

CAS have said we are not guilty, you can take digs but that's their verdict. I don't know how that doesn't sink in. Not guilty means not guilty,

Being completely honest I've said on here many times I thought we were guilty as sin but I'm not part of CAS nor does my opinion both before and after this morning matter. I also don't know the details that they do (nor do I know the law as well). I can only take the decision on here and say "Hey I was wrong", same as you.

Because you arn't really not guilty are you? You got off on a technicality that Uefa should have foreseen.

Fair play to you though, I know many a city fan right now clinging their nails into being a 'proper run club'.

 

[ROFLUTION]

I can see one or two problems with that!

Care to elaborate? I can see bigger problems for all historic/normal clubs who earned their succes if not done.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

It's a legal document, and you confess you know nothing about legal stuff, so your opinion of how it is worded hardly holds any weight. It's incomparable to a normal press release for a start, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's drafted by legal experts and it is worded perfectly in that regard, it may well not be worded perfectly for a layman like you or I to digest but that would be to fundamentally mistake its purpose.

If it was as simple as 'not cooperating', why has every single other club punished by UEFA - including City in the past - not tried it? Because it only works if UEFA's case is not viable from the start. When it is, as when City were punished in 2014, then the club will cooperate and try to reach a settlement. Which City did, and part of the settlement meant that City gave UEFA access to all of its relevant records needed to assess the ongoing period up until 2017, at which point UEFA were happy with what they saw and allowed City to exit the settlement.

People are desperate to make apocalyptic conclusions about what this means for FFP, but nothing has changed. The case has been and always will be that anything UEFA does has to be able stand up in an independent court - do people take issue with this principle? This time it could not. Simple as that. UEFA were clearly influenced by politics and decided to pursue a flimsy case. It would not be a 'victory' for football or FFP if they had been allowed to prevail in that pursuit.

What are you on about? In no way is this legal document. Its a press release, its even feckin called a press release (well its called itself a media release, which is the same thing)... And last time I checked, a media/press release isn't a legal document.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

It always seemed like UEFA had a bit of an agenda against City in fairness. There was a lot of noise coming from the likes of Barca and Bayern around the time that the investigation was being conducted by UEFA, it did seem like there was a bit of 'appeasing the old boys' kind of thing.

Still, doesn't shed a good light on either City or UEFA. UEFA botched the original investigation in 2015 so not that surprising that no further action has been taken. For City, and the likes of PSG, Chelsea etc. it does seem like open season has been declared. UEFA should use this as a motivator to do FFP correctly. At the moment, the only clubs suffering are the ones that actually are in need of the UEFA money for their own sustainability.

Best not to focus on this too much. Win our games and we get third, and we are in Europe on our own merits. Win Eurpoa League and we get a better seeding for the draw. Let's focus on our own house. This obsession with City is a bit like the small minded noise that was coming out of City years ago, 'noisy neighbours' etc and all that. Morally and ethically, all the noise that comes out of that club is just wrong, and somewhere down the line the right thing will be done.

That's an old revisionist chestnut dragged out by the media in particular. It seems that clubs want to maintain the Old Boys Network when there really isn't any concrete evidence to support that. PSG seem to be loathed for their 'new money plastic,' status but there never appears to be any conspiracy to get them chucked out.

I wonder if Pep wasn't the Golden media Boy or them being afraid to criticise Middle Eastern owners, whether they'd be so quick to spring to City's defence

 

[Pexbo]

Really, because it says allegations that weren't time barred were proven false..

Baghdad Bob has got nothin’ on you.

 

[Infra-red]

Have they actually said you aren't guilty?
Whats the fine for?

Contravening Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (City obstructed the governing body's investigation).

 

[Fox_Chrys]

Not surprised, I think UEFA were either aware or felt after the hearing it was getting overturned when they asked for the public date to be changed.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Care to elaborate? I can see bigger problems for all historic/normal clubs who earned their succes if not done.

Ban Sheikh owned clubs but keep all the other wealthy white men owned clubs...You can't see a problem with that proposal?

 

[Verminator]

The mental gymnastics and obtuse attitude from some city fans is laughable.

City were fined 10m for not cooperating.
If they wished to prove innocence, they would have been keen to cooperate, surely?

It is effectively an admission of guilt, with a dash of, "Prove it then!"

The have not been exonerated.
The verdict is "Not proven."
The difference is huge.

 

[adexkola]

Bad news: City keep their best players, have access to income from the CL...

Good news: hopefully this kills FFP, and football decides what to really do with income inequality: make it so that money can no longer be used (by oil club or blue blood club) to buy success, or ignore it and let the richest win. Choose one. But yeah, glad that FFP was embarrassed.

It will be hilarious to see the big clubs, in the interest of fairness and justice, create a closed SuperLeague only accessible to them. Hope they create it, leave the rest of football to evolve and thrive, and get locked inside this stupid SuperLeague where they die a painful death playing pointless matches to some modified classical music anthem.

 

[acnumber9]

As far as we know (so far anyway) CAS have not found City breaching any FFP rules

Well they’ve been found breaching something otherwise they wouldn’t be fined at all.

 

[padr81]

Have they actually said you aren't guilty?
Whats the fine for?

MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES - That is the headline from CAS. Manchester City did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship is pretty conclusive.

Listen there is guilt and there is guilt, despite me digging my heels in here, I know we're up to all kinds of shady shit. But I also knew UEFA had nothing other than some dodgy emails that they couldn't back up. My main stance is not that City are some glowing angelic club its that legally we've done nothing wrong because UEFA are fecking useless.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It seems that @padr81 is legitimately conflicted about his allegiance to such a morally bankrupt organisation. I would recommned abandoning the mental gymnastics to free yourself of the cognitive dissonance that's causing this deep emotional conflict.

After all its only 22 idiots kicking a bag of wind round some grass, is it really worth it?

 

[RedSky]

Is there a list of the alleged offenses anywhere? From reading the CAS statement it implies there's a significant amount?

 

[padr81]

Because you arn't really not guilty are you? You got off on a technicality that Uefa should have foreseen.

Fair play to you though, I know many a city fan right now clinging their nails into being a 'proper run club'.

Nah man, I've known we've been dodgy since we struck a deal in 13/14. Thats when this should really have been sorted. Mainly I'm just a, bored at work, b, can see the difference between knowing whats happening and proving it, c, I like arguing on the internet.

It seems that @padr81 is legitimately conflicted about his allegiance to such a morally bankrupt organisation. I would recommned abandoning the mental gymnastics to free yourself of the cognitive dissonance that's causing this deep emotional conflict.

After all its only 22 idiots kicking a bag of wind round some grass, is it really worth it?

Wheres the fun in that! For the most part I'm just happy we're not getting thrown out of the Premier League (which would have been the next step)

 

[Untied]

No, to believe this, I only need to believe the headline of the CAS verdict which quite clearly states what you allege is not true. City's owner did not disguise equity funding as sponsorships. I guarantee that when the CAS judgement is fully released it will reveal that City provided evidence that comprehensively refuted that allegation. This is not 'time-barred', this is CAS stating that it simply did not appear to be true. They must have been shown evidence to the contrary, not simply a lack of evidence in its favour.

How do you explain the email from your CFO saying that you did exactly this?

 

[TrustInOle]

It seems that @padr81 is legitimately conflicted about his allegiance to such a morally bankrupt organisation. I would recommned abandoning the mental gymnastics to free yourself of the cognitive dissonance that's causing this deep emotional conflict.

After all its only 22 idiots kicking a bag of wind round some grass, is it really worth it?

And to think, many of our own fans wanted a similar ownership.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Because you arn't really not guilty are you? You got off on a technicality that Uefa should have foreseen.

Fair play to you though, I know many a city fan right now clinging their nails into being a 'proper run club'.

It’s hilarious isn’t it. These same people were criticising Man United for years on how we have been buying the league. They hated what Chelsea were doing when Abramovich first arrived on the scene and preached that Chelsea were not a proper club anymore.

These same people defend City until they are blue in the face, baring in mind what City have done to get to this point is far worse than Chelsea. The verdict could have been guilty and everything out in the open and they would still have an excuse. Most likely that UEFA and CAS are conspiring against City.

City fans want nothing more than approval from the football world, but they will never have it now. They are the most hated club in Europe and no one will accept them as a true proper club. As much as they yearn for it.

 

[JPRouve]

Have they actually said you aren't guilty?
Whats the fine for?

No, they literally say that they are guilty of breaching art.56, that's what "contravened" means.

 

[krautrøck]

Said an unnamed CAS official to Reuters: "Let's just say the Citeh appeal moved me...TO A BIGGER HOUSE!"

 

[padr81]

How do you explain the email from your CFO saying that you did exactly this?

Lies, faked, out of context, too old, secret Liverpool plot. Tons of reasons. I reckon David Gill sent his nephew to work for the club, he snuck into the office and sent the email when no one was looking. Sir Alex played a part too.

 

[Jippy]

So they got off on a technicality. 'Time-barring' is bollocks. The passage of time alone does not lessen guilt.

 

[Infra-red]

Again... you have no proof until the entire thing comes out. They said allegations were either unproven or time barred. This means the allegations that weren't time barred were not proven true because of lack of evidence (backed up by Uefa) and we don't even know if they looked at the truth of the time barred ones. As far as we know (so far anyway) CAS have not found City breaching any FFP rules (whether we were found in breach of certain ones that were then time barred or more likelyr certain ones were timed barred and never looked at means we've not been proven guilty) Not proven guilty = innocent according to those making judgement.

I think you'll find most City fans are delighted because were we found guilty by CAS we could well have ended up in League 2 or Championship because the Premier League would be forced to take action. The club had a ton on the line that was more than CL qualification.

I'm not familiar with the Premier League's rules in this regard (or how they differ to UEFA's) - do the Premier League also have a five-year statute of limitations on FFP breaches? If so, the alleged breaches that were ruled time-barred by CAS, would not form part of any Premier League investigation. If not, then the Premier League would be free to investigate those allegations and potentially bring charges.

 

[MikeeMike]

Totally expected outcome. Found they did nothing wrong but token fine for not cooperating.
Actually expected a suspended ban.
This also sets a worrying precident for the future and makes a farce of ffp. The damage to the competition (CL) is more than they can risk by banning any of “top” European clubs.

 

[TrustInOle]

Nah man, I've known we've been dodgy since we struck a deal in 13/14. Thats when this should really have been sorted. Mainly I'm just a, bored at work, b, can see the difference between knowing whats happening and proving it, c, I like arguing on the internet.



Wheres the fun in that! For the most part I'm just happy we're not getting thrown out of the Premier League (which would have been the next step)

To be honest, I much more enjoy our rivalry these days. Carry on strong lad, getting me through work aswell

 

[padr81]

I'm not familiar with the Premier League's rules in this regards (or how they differ to UEFA's) - do the Premier League also have a five-year statute of limitations on FFP breaches? If so, the alleged breaches that were ruled time-barred by CAS, would not form part of any Premier League investigation. If not, then the Premier League would be free to investigate those allegations and potentially bring charges.

For sure, I don't know if the PL have a time or not, word was they were waiting to see how we did at CAS and would follow on the back of UEFA. They still might if the time barred allegations are the big ones and could be proven.

 

[BobbyManc]

How do you explain the email from your CFO saying that you did exactly this?

What email?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh look, apparently City did refute much of UEFA's claims after all. Not only were they time-barred, they were incorrect in their interpretations. As I said, I can't wait for the full report.

 

[Oly Francis]

The above seems relevant. Seems like a flaw in UEFAs rules if there's a 5 year leniency period.

Yeahn the real question is : why didn't UEFA act sooner and why didn't they manage to find strong evidence of what they alleged. I mean, of course we're on a Man Utd forum so you expect a pretty strong bias but just imagine for a second that UEFA built a totally bogus case against Man Utd, i bet most people would want someone to second check the grounds of the decision. I'm a lawyer so this kinda runs in my DNA but your starting point can't be "City is guily, the CAS decision is bullsh*t". You HAVE to assume that they're innocent and UEFA has to prove they're guilty, otherwise it means that UEFA can do whatever they want to clubs they don't like. Hire good lawyers, hire top financial analysts, find conclusive evidence and convict. Worst part being, UEFA drafted the rules so they knew statute of limitations would bar them.

 

[John Keiler]

Hope you guys get in.

Worked well for the non league clubs until 1986. That was an old boys club making decisions too.

 

[padr81]

What email?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh look, apparently City did refute much of UEFA's claims after all. Not only were they time-barred, they were incorrect in their interpretations. As I said, I can't wait for the full report.

Whoever that guy was deserves a raise. All my going on and joking aside, how does one refute those. Guess smarter men than us mere internet folk. UEFA really are inept though.

 

[RedSky]

Yeahn the real question is : why didn't UEFA act sooner and why didn't they manage to find strong evidence of what they alleged. I mean, of course we're on a Man Utd forum so you expect a pretty strong bias but just imagine for a second that UEFA built a totally bogus case against Man Utd, i bet most people would want someone to second check the grounds of the decision. I'm a lawyer so this kinda runs in my DNA but your starting point can't be "City is guily, the CAS decision is bullsh*t". You HAVE to assume that they're innocent and UEFA has to prove they're guilty, otherwise it means that UEFA can do whatever they want to clubs they don't like. Hire good lawyers, hire top financial analysts, find conclusive evidence and convict. Worst part being, UEFA drafted the rules so they knew statute of limitations would bar them.

Well, didn't this all bubble up to the surface because Citys emails got leaked? That's why the initial case was launched like 8 months ago? My guess is UEFA knew City were upto no good but had no evidence so couldn't do anything. Then their emails got leaked and UEFA did a victory dance and launched the investigation, my only question is why did both City and UEFA fail to spot the 5 year loophole on the first investigation? Or did they simply ignore it?

Seems very odd.

 

[padr81]

Yeahn the real question is : why didn't UEFA act sooner and why didn't they manage to find strong evidence of what they alleged. I mean, of course we're on a Man Utd forum so you expect a pretty strong bias but just imagine for a second that UEFA built a totally bogus case against Man Utd, i bet most people would want someone to second check the grounds of the decision. I'm a lawyer so this kinda runs in my DNA but your starting point can't be "City is guily, the CAS decision is bullsh*t". You HAVE to assume that they're innocent and UEFA has to prove they're guilty, otherwise it means that UEFA can do whatever they want to clubs they don't like. Hire good lawyers, hire top financial analysts, find conclusive evidence and convict. Worst part being, UEFA drafted the rules so they knew statute of limitations would bar them.

Honestly if I had to guess and its purely a guess, they cut a fecking shady deal with us in 13/14 and it was forgotten about (on of my major issues with current City), the leaks came and they tried really hard to cover their own arses by hanging us out.

 

[padr81]

Yeahn the real question is : why didn't UEFA act sooner and why didn't they manage to find strong evidence of what they alleged. I mean, of course we're on a Man Utd forum so you expect a pretty strong bias but just imagine for a second that UEFA built a totally bogus case against Man Utd, i bet most people would want someone to second check the grounds of the decision. I'm a lawyer so this kinda runs in my DNA but your starting point can't be "City is guily, the CAS decision is bullsh*t". You HAVE to assume that they're innocent and UEFA has to prove they're guilty, otherwise it means that UEFA can do whatever they want to clubs they don't like. Hire good lawyers, hire top financial analysts, find conclusive evidence and convict. Worst part being, UEFA drafted the rules so they knew statute of limitations would bar them.

See @TrustInOle the lawyer agrees with me

 

[Oly Francis]

So they got off on a technicality. 'Time-barring' is bollocks. The passage of time alone does not lessen guilt.

There's several reasons justifying statute of limitations, it's been discussed by lawyers forever, the main reasons being the fact that defendents can loose evidence to disprove the claim over time, that it shows the lack of diligence from the plaintiff, and that litigation of old cases can have consequences that aren't proportionate with the original offense. That's a basic legal rule, you can't brush it off when it suits you even if it seems unfair.