The guilty always try to silence their accusers.
Won't belong before they launch attacks against the investigators character.
Won't belong before they launch attacks against the investigators character.
Manchester City risk of getting CL banned
- Thread starter meamth
- Start date
That doesn't make sense. The investigation has been completed and the AC is now reviewing the results of IC's investigation. The appeal to CAS, if accurate, would seem like it is jumping the gun a bit though.
To date only one side has been leaking, and it hasn't been City...
This is the whole point of this appeal. They're appealing on the basis that they believe UEFA have neglected their duty to perform due process in their investigation and that it has ignored the evidence City have submitted. The fact that this news has again leaked via UEFA's side is likely only going to fuel City's belief in this claim.
I said just the other day that it’s farcical for UEFA to be in a position to possibly be intimidated by a football club’s ownership.
And here we are.
And here we are.
We all know they are not fully innocent. They have tried to break the law in what looks like legal ways I guess, but under deeper investigations that would fall apart.
I personally don't think what City has done should be illegal though in football. Although the City owners are pretty horrible overall and they will break whatever rule suitable for self gain.
But why would City want to leak information related to their alleged breaking of FFP rules?
Last edited:
Don't understand the fuss. After the heavily redacted report we'll be advised by twitter that there was no collusion.
Doing a Michael jackson, i.e., throw money at it to make the accusations go away.
I'm really not trying to take sides here but surely UEFA have the right to progress the case how they choose to?
Then, if City don't like the decision or how any decision was arrived at, THEY have the right to a CAS appeal then?
Separate (but related). I'm sure I heard a discussion about this a couple of weeks ago and some journalist said all clubs sign a disclaimer each season to say they won't take legal action against UEFA.... a prerequisite of being allowed to participate in European competitions.
Now I can't see how that would be legally binding and if true, it looks like this will prove it. But if City win, I can't see how UEFA or FFP have got any teeth going forward. Could be the first step to the end of FFP.
there fixed that for you
Not really, no. They have to conduct it in a manner that is not prejudiced. Hence, why all clubs have recourse to an independent court such as CAS. City's allegation is that the investigation has been biased from the start, and that the body of evidence the club submitted has not been considered and they have not received any reply about it. They're also unhappy at how UEFA have been leaking things to the press which they feel confirms the view that the investigation is determined to reach only one conclusion.
As for the legal disclaimer, that's clearly untrue. No club would sign up to such an agreement. There must be a legal contract between clubs and UEFA but it evidently cannot prevent seeking recourse to an independent court to redress a grievance.
I agree they do (or should).
From what I've read, City are saying UEFA are ignoring facts City have provided? If that's the case, (1) UEFA will lose any appeal that goes to CAS and (2) they'll look stupid and run the risk of setting a precedent for future challenges.
No idea who's right or wrong but don't agree that it's City's decision to say what UEFA can or cant do.
Just saying UEFA should have the right to come to a decision (right or wrong) THEN City can appeal? To me, that seems a fair process for any sport/organisation/company?
If we wanted to try to influence things or try to demonstrate our declared "innocence", we could've leaked details of what was contained within the 100 pages of evidence that we submitted to UEFA IC that City mentioned in one of the official statements was not considered before the IC submitted their findings to the AC. (I'm putting innocence in quote marks there because we've already been found guilty and punished for this 5 years ago, so innocence would relate to any additional things we allegedly did that weren't part of the original guilty finding).
I assume that the details and submission of that 100 pages of evidence will form a core part of City's appeal to CAS on due process. City more or less stated that this evidence wasn't reviewed by the IC because they didn't have time to review it before they had to submit their findings to the AC in order to make the 5 year statute of limitations deadline.
City aren't saying what UEFA can or can't do, the point is they're appealing to an independent court to decide what UEFA should or shouldn't do. UEFA's decision is already known, that's part of the problem. City are not appealing UEFA's decision, they are appealing the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. The verdict is separate to that.
To expand on the part I bolded, no UEFA doesn't have the right to progress however they want to. They have to follow their own regulations. City's appeal to CAS will be whether UEFA followed those regulations. CAS has already found against UEFA numerous times on FFP for not following their own regulations. Given UEFA's rush to beat their own 5 year statute of limitations on this case, and the failure to review City's evidence before the case was transferred from IC to AC, it wouldn't surprise me if UEFA has messed up again on this.
Think we'll agree to disagree?
To me, appealing that (in City's eyes), UEFA have carried out an investigation incorrectly IS saying what UEFA can or can't do?
To me, let UEFA make their decision and then bring in CAS. I thought that's what CAS was for... to appeal sporting decisions.
(Edit. To be clear, if UEFA have gone outside agreed process (their own), agree any decision should be overturned, just thought CAS would get involved further down the line.... should still be same end result?)
Last edited:
Not a sports lawyer but was CAS findings after a UEFA decision (i.e. Saying the decision reached had been reached incorrectly) or before UEFA had even reached a.decision?
(I think PSGs CAS appeal was after UEFA decision?)
If the latter, agree.
Yes I think this is the crux of the issue. On PSG, they appealed after UEFA re-opened a case that had previously been decided, but before UEFA was able to reach a new decision on the case. They won the appeal because UEFA hadn't re-opened the case quickly enough according to their rules.
So thinking about this, maybe this is City's logic in the seemingly premature appeal: City are assuming that UEFA will find us guilty, which would bring potential penalty (e.g. CL ban) and obviously reputational damage. If City appeal after the penalty is imposed, and hypothetically win, then the penalty would be reversed on due process issues but we wouldn't recover the reputational damage as we'd effectively just be winning on a technicality (CAS doesn't consider the actual thing we've been found guilty of, just the process to get to that guilty verdict). By appealing before the penalty, if we hypothetically win on due process issues, then the guilty verdict (as it were) would never be announced and perhaps we'd come out of it looking a little better reputationally.
UEFA's leaks earlier today suggested a decision was coming in the next 7-10 days. I wonder whether UEFA can still publish that decision if City have lodged a CAS appeal beforehand? Interesting times anyway!
If spending over 500m net transfer over 3-4 seasons is still legal for a club with no fan outside the country, no huge income outside the country is still legal, what is FFP for ?
Trial by Media and some have already made their decisions because of the reporting as the last 2 pages show.
Plenty on Twitter about this
Plenty on Twitter about this
This and posting Revenue close to United is shady.
They can't even fill their stadium , don't have fans outside the UK and magically posting this numbers of revenues.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well they could have but obviously there would be little benefit to that which is probably why they decided against it, as i doubt they are not leaking information from some moral standpoint.
If they leak information, any information about this case then it makes the news, highlights the situation further and potentially blows it up into a bigger story than it already is. And from a PR point of view thats not very helpful as City feel these accusations are tarnishing their reputation.
Commercial and Match Day revenue is over £100m less than United it's TV revenue of being consistently in the CL that makes it look closer than it is. Take away all the dodgy deals we've now got Puma paying £65m a year, add in SAP, Nexen, Nissan and it mounts up, only big Arab State deals are now Ethiad, Aarbar, success is what brings the sponsors in, not the number of fans, which will grow every year the more success that there is.
Think they will have to come down heavier on clubs breaking the FFP rules. The fines don't mean anything to them. Banned for 1 year is the answer, and then for 2 and more years, if they break the rules again.
Agree with this. The assumption is, that the 100 page document actually has some significant defence in it. If you were to be sceptical could argue that they have no substantial defence, leaking the document would reveal this, thus, their approach is to discredit the investigation to once again make themselves out to be the victims.
Looking at the way they have approached this specific investigation from the start, they look like they have adopted this strategy early on. An aggressive and defensive tone from the off.
Considering the broader context of the whole Abu-Dhabi/ City ownership, if they lose this case it has a big impact on the initial purpose of the investment, being, to build positive PR for Abu-Dhabi (aka Sportwashing). Internally they may be accepting that they have done wrong, suspect the approach from now on will be of victims and will overplay the dicrediting of FFP and all investigations, probably taking the case to the absolute extreme, through every court in the land.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Precisely. The Etihad sponsorship is no longer overvalued (it was in 2009), so the only commercial revenue that is a still overvalued is Aabar and Etisalat, although UEFA have already capped the value of these based on the 2014 agreement.
The contents of the 100 page document are now irrelevant to the appeal to CAS. The contents of that document were only relevant to the UEFA IC decision. CAS isn't going to rule on the actual merits of the case, they're ruling on due process. For City, part of that due process is that the contents of that 100 page document weren't considered by the IC before they submitted their findings to the AC. The assumption, I think, is that the IC didn't have time to fully review it before the 5 year statute of limitations was up, so they rushed it. City's official statements on this have focused heavily on due process (or lack of it, as City claim).
The conversation on sportswashing is a separate conversation. If that was the primary reason for ADUG's investment, then it's been a colossal failure irrespective of FFP.
Agreed, City's statements on the merits of this case have been very tightly limited to the hacks being out of context, and the inferences from the hacks being false. The more aggressive parts of City's statements have been on due process, including constant leaking from UEFA (including yet more leaks yesterday), so makes sense for us to stay completely silent publicly to strengthen our hand at CAS.
If you feel you are a victim of injustice by an institution like the police, and you seek to redress that grievance in court, it would be a pretty weird reaction for someone to say 'oh are you trying to tell the police what they can and can't do?'. It's the same here. City feel they are the victim of an injustice by UEFA, and they are taking action to address that. The CAS will make a judgement on the matter and it will be the CAS who determine what UEFA can or cannot do, not City.Think we'll agree to disagree?
To me, appealing that (in City's eyes), UEFA have carried out an investigation incorrectly IS saying what UEFA can or can't do?
We only cheated in the past so stop picking on us you nasty lot at UEFA!
Haha exactly. We were on track to pass FFP until you started flying Emirates instead ffs
if they get kicked out for the next seasons comp then Arsenal will be in instead yeah?
Think this is me not wording it right (your City colleague has maybe got it). I wasn't saying they can't disagree or appeal, I just thought they'd have to wait until a formal decision was made and THEN appeal.
Like I say, semantics (or just me).
Why ?
It's not semantics, you're missing the point that City are not appealing against a decision, they are appealing against the manner in which the investigation has hitherto been conducted. Any decision UEFA do or do not make is an entirely separate issue.
Well one of us is....
I know they're not appealing a decision (think posts are quite clear?). I'm saying I think due process should be completed and then City (if they want to) appeal..... you're saying they can/should appeal a process before any decision is made?
It's just a different view that's all. Anyway, time for thread to move on... good luck with appeal, no-one wants to see City thrown out of the CL.
Yep.
Of course not. Why would they leak evidence of their guilt? Their plan could be to throw millions on solicitors to make the investigation into them as difficult as possible.
Have UEFA leaked anything or are you just referring to the original football leaks?