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

[BobbyManc]

Like everyone, I'm really interested to see what happens here. City have been found guilty already so either:-

1. City have something that they withheld from UEFA but were willing to disclose to CAS

2. UEFA have a major issue with City and ignored the evidence and found them guilty anyway

Or

3. City actually are guilty.

If it's either of the first two, then the UEFA finding should be quashed and no punishment handed down. If it's the third, then I don't see how CAS can overturn or reduce the ban that City got. It may be deemed unfair that they were given such a long ban but surely if City are guilty, then they didn't really give a feck about fairness themselves so why should they be given any leeway now?

It’s not as simple as the binary between 1 and 2. It’s not about ignoring evidence but interpreting it differently. UEFA are not going to take a case to CAS that they know is untenable. Very highly esteemed European judges signed off the case for UEFA. It must be at least somewhat credible. Whether CAS side with another legal interpretation, remains to be seen; it wouldn’t be the first time they sided against UEFA in the aspect of an investigation being time-barred, as City’s may well be.

Tbh, I’d even say that it’s a combination of all 3. City likely have presented new evidence to CAS, UEFA likely have acted under a degree of pressure which blurred/overrided other questions, and City likely are guilty of violating some FFP rules. I still think it will boil down to the time-barred issue. That’s the most significant hurdle UEFA have to jump at CAS. If they do that, I think City could only be saved somewhat by the full facts about the complex sponsorship arrangements, but even then if that’s interpreted favourably I’d expect a year-ban for not cooperating.

 

[Slysi17]

I personally think the ban won't be overturned but be reduced to a year. That's my prediction. Anyone know if Manchester City can appeal again? Or is CAS the furthest they can go.

 

[Strelok]

But isn’t what has happened. All that has happened is they replaced the previous dominant force. The league would currently be more competitive if they weren’t there. Without them there would’ve been a different champion every year since 2013.

Liverpool have the perception of doing it the right way because they have done it with their own resources. Not a bottomless pit of oil money. There’s consequences to what every other team does with their money. If they get it wrong they could be screwed for years. City can just rip it up and start again. That isn’t competition.

Agreed.

And it'd inflate the whole league and one day if that oil money leaves, things gonna burst.

 

[Judas]

I keep seeing this take from people about it being reduced. If they're found guilty, why would their punishment be lessened? It's illogical.

 

[sun_tzu]

I keep seeing this take from people about it being reduced. If they're found guilty, why would their punishment be lessened? It's illogical.

I think the real worry of UEFA is if found guilty and given a 2 year ban city might well go to the European Courts as opposed to CAS and put a legal challenge to FFP as there are numerous lawyers who seem to think there is enough of a grey area to make that challenge

UEFA then run the prospect of a very expensive and high profile legal case with possibly huge financial reprocussions against them if they loose - plus FFP being struck down ... I think the hope is that city might take a 1 year ban on the chin but for a 2 year ban they would rather take it a step further ... equally Im not sure if it went to the EU courts if they could also suspend the ban whilst the case was heard

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

i hope man city beat this verdict for epl's sake

Ah yes because it will be great having a Corrupt state funded team who can spend whatever they want without the pressure of financial fair play. You are right though of course, it’s much better to reward money like we do in the rest of society rather than rewarding past good performances.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Ban will stand. No worries lads. One year or two, doesn't matter.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I keep seeing this take from people about it being reduced. If they're found guilty, why would their punishment be lessened? It's illogical.

because most of the time the ban is reduced on appeal, often with the ban being suspended.

 

[duffer]

I keep seeing this take from people about it being reduced. If they're found guilty, why would their punishment be lessened? It's illogical.

Seems to be what almost always happens on appeal.

 

[Noodle]

I read that whilst it's pretty clear City broke the rules, the issue is more around how UEFA built the case and where the evidence came from. I fear if the ban is reduced or removed entirely it'll be down to technicalities of how the case was built and prosecuted rather than the actual pretense of guilt.

I think a big part of the argument was that the evidence came from hacked emails, and that UEFA didn't follow protocols when the case was heard. If City have clever lawyers they could try and get it thrown out on this basis rather than trying to argue they aren't guilty. I hope i'm wrong

 

[PepG]

Ban will stand. No worries lads. One year or two, doesn't matter.

It does matter! If the ban is 2 years it is very likely to see a lot of the top players leave City, including the manager. If its only one year noone will leave and they will just focus on winning the PL next season.

 

[Adam-Utd]

I keep seeing this take from people about it being reduced. If they're found guilty, why would their punishment be lessened? It's illogical.

Because the CAS can still find them guilty, but feel the original punishment is too harsh.

They can remove the ban entirely if they feel like it.

I suspect though if City are found guilty of what UEFA says then CAS will throw the book at them, but maybe 2 years could potentially be seen as overly harsh.

I think they'll reduce it to 1 also but we will see.

 

[ArmandTamzarian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

City being banned from the CL and stripped of their titles in 2012 and 2014 seems too good to be true.

 

[arthurka]

City being banned from the CL and stripped of their titles in 2012 and 2014 seems too good to be true.

Well there is also the other scenario of being let off and deeming the FFP a non regulatory thing.

 

[Siorac]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I have no idea who he is but my first question is: does he not have some sort of platform where he can just write all this out in an article? Twitter is possibly the worst possible platform for conveying such information.

 

[BobbyManc]

City being banned from the CL and stripped of their titles in 2012 and 2014 seems too good to be true.

He doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. All the talk of losing titles originates from speculation in the Daily Mail, and he’s presenting it as basically an automatic consequence - for one, there’s not any evidence that the 11/12 season could even come under scrutiny anyway, let alone the PL would wish to try and pursue such a punishment.
If City lose the CAS case we’ll get a substantial points deduction for the next season at worst. He also says if City win the case or even get it reduced then FFP is dead. Again, hyperbolic nonsense - his argument is simultaneously if the ban is reduced City will still be stripped of titles but FFP will also be shown to be impotent and therefore collapses. Huh?
UEFA have lost cases against PSG (who have undoubtedly exploited sponsorship rules more than anyone else), AC Milan and Galatasaray at CAS off the top of my head about FFP violations. Why is it that another lost case now would be apocalyptic for the system? He clearly has no understanding of the case, as City are not challenging the system itself.

 

[Beachryan]

City will be fine. Legal systems are there today to protect those with the most funds and best lawyers.

Personally I'm utterly shocked that City didn't just payoff UEFA, that's usually all UEFA is looking for.

Money buys you the ability to cheat. Look around at the world. Rules are for those that don't have funds to work around them.

 

[TheReligion]

What is the burden of proof here?

It seems either the evidence gathered is admissible and they will be found guilty of despite being guilty the evidence gathered will be inadmissible which means it's unable to be used against them and as such they will be found not guilty.

That appears to be the crux of it. I think city's case will rest totally on how the evidence was obtained as opposed to contesting their actual guilt which is blindingly obvious to everyone.

 

[Tom Cato]

I personally think the ban won't be overturned but be reduced to a year. That's my prediction. Anyone know if Manchester City can appeal again? Or is CAS the furthest they can go.

CAS is the highest legal entity in the world, in charge of the resolution of sports disputes. So yep, this is the end of the road.

 

[Barnslig]

He doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. All the talk of losing titles originates from speculation in the Daily Mail, and he’s presenting it as basically an automatic consequence - for one, there’s not any evidence that the 11/12 season could even come under scrutiny anyway, let alone the PL would wish to try and pursue such a punishment.
If City lose the CAS case we’ll get a substantial points deduction for the next season at worst. He also says if City win the case or even get it reduced then FFP is dead. Again, hyperbolic nonsense - his argument is simultaneously if the ban is reduced City will still be stripped of titles but FFP will also be shown to be impotent and therefore collapses. Huh?
UEFA have lost cases against PSG (who have undoubtedly exploited sponsorship rules more than anyone else), AC Milan and Galatasaray at CAS off the top of my head about FFP violations. Why is it that another lost case now would be apocalyptic for the system? He clearly has no understanding of the case, as City are not challenging the system itself.

Did he not say if the ban is reduced to a minor slap on the wrist that's basically FFP dead? This is one out of three potential outcomes, the other two basically means FFP is not dead?

 

[rotherham_red]

I think the real worry of UEFA is if found guilty and given a 2 year ban city might well go to the European Courts as opposed to CAS and put a legal challenge to FFP as there are numerous lawyers who seem to think there is enough of a grey area to make that challenge

UEFA then run the prospect of a very expensive and high profile legal case with possibly huge financial reprocussions against them if they loose - plus FFP being struck down ... I think the hope is that city might take a 1 year ban on the chin but for a 2 year ban they would rather take it a step further ... equally Im not sure if it went to the EU courts if they could also suspend the ban whilst the case was heard

But UEFA isn't bound by the EU, it's a private members club and the CL is a by-invitation only competition.

 

[BobbyManc]

City will be fine. Legal systems are there today to protect those with the most funds and best lawyers.

Personally I'm utterly shocked that City didn't just payoff UEFA, that's usually all UEFA is looking for.

Money buys you the ability to cheat. Look around at the world. Rules are for those that don't have funds to work around them.

But it's City up against UEFA backed by clubs like United, PSG, Real Madrid, Barcelona. This analogy doesn't work here. Sure, City will be sending some of the most reputable lawyers from the most esteemed law firms, but so have UEFA. They had lawyers involved in the process from the beginning that have held prominent positions in EU bodies. UEFA are a huge institution, the idea they'll be overwhelmed by the might of City's lawyers is something I'd expect to read as fan-fiction on Bluemoon.
The case will not come down to the legal representation of either side, as you can guarantee both sides will have excellent and expensive representation. It's going to come down to the three CAS judges (one chosen from a list by City, one by UEFA, one mutually agreed I believe) and how they choose to interpret the facts as they see them.

 

[BobbyManc]

Did he not say if the ban is reduced to a minor slap on the wrist that's basically FFP dead? This is one out of three potential outcomes, the other two basically means FFP is not dead?

Yeah I've had another look and you're right, I skimmed through it and misread that part. The point still remains though that all that thread is doing is scaremongering in both directions (City lose all titles v FFP completely collapses) and dramatising the case to get a few retweets. There's very little in there of any substance.

 

[Eggric]

Imagine the absolute scenes when City get a reduced 1 year ban, and UEFA decides to reduce the number of EPL champions leagues spots to just 3 for this season, and give the Europa league runners up the spot instead.

 

[harms]

Imagine the absolute scenes when City get a reduced 1 year ban, and UEFA decides to reduce the number of EPL champions leagues spots to just 3 for this season, and give the Europa league runners up the spot instead.

And why would they?

 

[Barnslig]

Yeah I've had another look and you're right, I skimmed through it and misread that part. The point still remains though that all that thread is doing is scaremongering in both directions (City lose all titles v FFP completely collapses) and dramatising the case to get a few retweets. There's very little in there of any substance.

True. I think to most people who has followed this case, there was nothing new, but to someone that has little knowledge of the potential outcomes I think he did alright to bring to light what can potentially happen, albeit a little over the top.

 

[Renegade]

Excuse my ignorance but if City win the case could UEFA just simply not invite them into future competitions? Is that not legal?

 

[Goku23]

I have a feeling it will be reduced to 1 year which still benefits us if we mess up top 4

 

[BobbyManc]

True. I think to most people who has followed this case, there was nothing new, but to someone that has little knowledge of the potential outcomes I think he did alright to bring to light what can potentially happen, albeit a little over the top.

I don't think so, there's too much unfounded rubbish in there. I've missed the most obvious example, which is that UEFA will re-open an investigation into PSG if they win the appeal against City. That exposes he knows nothing. PSG defeated UEFA at CAS already in that case because they were time-barred. It is literally impossible that UEFA can do anything whatsoever about that, even if they wanted to - let's not forget Nasser Al-Khelaifi now sits on the UEFA executive body.

 

[Judas]

Imagine the absolute scenes when City get a reduced 1 year ban, and UEFA decides to reduce the number of EPL champions leagues spots to just 3 for this season, and give the Europa league runners up the spot instead.

Is this in the same universe that Messi signs for Swansea?

 

[esmufc07]

I don't think so, there's too much unfounded rubbish in there. I've missed the most obvious example, which is that UEFA will re-open an investigation into PSG if they win the appeal against City. That exposes he knows nothing. PSG defeated UEFA at CAS already in that case because they were time-barred. It is literally impossible that UEFA can do anything whatsoever about that, even if they wanted to - let's not forget Nasser Al-Khelaifi now sits on the UEFA executive body. Does he really believe UEFA, in a case they were deemed time-barred a couple of years ago or

Are you gonna finish this or....

 

[Eggric]

And why would they?

They wouldn't. I'm just being silly. (But on a serious note, imagine if the legal situation drags on and on, is only resolved in September, by which point City have played 1 Champions League game, and then are forced to quit the competition.)

 

[sun_tzu]

But UEFA isn't bound by the EU, it's a private members club and the CL is a by-invitation only competition.

Many lawyers argue that because of the financial incentives and clubs being at least as much a business as they are a sporting club that the eu courts may choose to allow an appeal under competition laws... it really would be down to the courts and lawyers can make strong cases either way... not sure uefa would want to chance it

 

[BobbyManc]

Are you gonna finish this or....

I will now decided to post it separately.

Basically, as a reminder that there is every reason to believe UEFA are not impartial adjudicators in these matters. City's case was led by Yves Leterme, former Preisdent of Belgium and now the CFCB IC chief. Well, only the year before, he also led the investigation into PSG. UEFA had an independent valuer assess PSG's sponsorship. They said it's true value should be about 5m euros, not the 100m euros which was claimed (bear in mind UEFA's independent assessor of City's major Etihad deals deemed them to actually be fair value). Leterme also let PSG choose their own valuer, who of course said the Qatari sponsorship was fair value. What did Leterme do with these conflicting opinions? He disregarded the independent one chosen by UEFA and let PSG's judgement of themselves prevail. One source told the NY Times his reasoning for this was 'absurd' and Cunha Rodrigues, a very high-profile judge in charge of UEFA's panel responsible for punishing teams, called this 'manifestly erroneous' and demanded the case be re-opened by UEFA. PSG challenged this on a flimsy legal basis that it was time-barred. UEFA could easily win the case, Rodrigues thought. But UEFA inexplicably decided to not defend themselves at CAS and sided with the interpretation of PSG's lawyers that it was time-barred.

So, basically, anyone saying UEFA have any interest in reopening an investigation into PSG is not familiar with the facts. As the facts show that UEFA's very wish was that PSG emerge unpunished, even when they had them in their grasp and its most senior and reputable lawyers were absolutely convinced about the strength of their case.

 

[cyberman]

But UEFA isn't bound by the EU, it's a private members club and the CL is a by-invitation only competition.

If City wins then there will be a total make over of how the CL is run. Whatver avenue UEFA lose in will be completley closed after this.

 

[rotherham_red]

Many lawyers argue that because of the financial incentives and clubs being at least as much a business as they are a sporting club that the eu courts may choose to allow an appeal under competition laws... it really would be down to the courts and lawyers can make strong cases either way... not sure uefa would want to chance it

Even so, technically, Man City are currently not based in a region that is within the EU either. If they were to adjudicate in such a manner, then it would open up a legal minefield for the court themselves as it would be a retrospective decision which would have no current locus, which is a pretty big paradox

 

[Shane88]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So United and Liverpool get an extra title.

Woo?

 

[BobbyManc]

Even so, technically, Man City are currently not based in a region that is within the EU either. If they were to adjudicate in such a manner, then it would open up a legal minefield for the court themselves as it would be a retrospective decision which would have no current locus, which is a pretty big paradox

There's no legal minefield. UEFA have to adhere to EU laws and regulations, with the obvious degree of elasticity allowed as it is a sporting competition. Anything UEFA does would have to stand up in an independent court depending on the details, be that CAS, EU or Swiss court.

 

[Sandikan]

So United and Liverpool get an extra title.

Woo?

Now that is fanciful nonsense. As are points deductions.

The ban will be the end of it. The powers that be are too gutless to go too severe.