East Londoner Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 Don’t forget how uefa got the information in the first place via hacked emails, surely this ruling was inevitable as the information was gained illegally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 Think the best thing would be to scrap FFP and similar schemes completely. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but it just doesn't matter what the rules are - there will always be ways around anything the rule makers dream up, including 'sponsorships, ground buy backs, misuse of academies etc.. Much the same could be said of 'fit and proper person' checks - another pointless joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daored Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 Danny Mills want a complete tool - saying how good it is that Man City effectively got off. What is the point of having FFP if it’s not followed? Our British media were up in arms over PSG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WECANDO Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 3 hours ago, mozo said: Not really. They were guilty of "failing to cooperate", but innocent of the "serious breaches of FFP" that they had been accused of. So if they were innocent,why did they not cooperate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, WECANDO said: So if they were innocent,why did they not cooperate? Because they were severely pissed with the fact the UEFA were leaking like a sieve all the allegations and information they had as well as the fact that at least some the information that they did have appears to have been obtained in somewhat dubious circumstances. So they knew UEFA were not being fair so just refused to cooperate knowing that they would appeal to CAS when the punishment was announced. I can see the point of FFP but it really is the old money trying to pull the bridge up behind them, remember when Real Madrid spent cast sums on the Galaticos, they couldn't afford that and subsequently sold their training ground to the Spanish government and bought it back for sod all. This has been going on for ages at the top, and they are just trying to stop other clubs getting in on the gravy train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isawjonshaw Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 4 hours ago, SinéadB said: Well it basically said that they didn't break FFP but lied/didn't co operate. "MANCHESTER CITY FC DID NOT DISGUISE EQUITY FUNDING AS SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS BUT DID FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE UEFA AUTHORITIES" https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf Crazy to think Man City are now a "Euro Heavyweight!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Olé said: Sensational defending there from their lawyers. They must have hired Laporte, Fernandinho & Edersen LLP, rather than Stones, Otamendi & Bravo LLP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natchfever Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Calculus said: Think the best thing would be to scrap FFP and similar schemes completely. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but it just doesn't matter what the rules are - there will always be ways around anything the rule makers dream up, including 'sponsorships, ground buy backs, misuse of academies etc.. Much the same could be said of 'fit and proper person' checks - another pointless joke. When UEFA and FIFA are so corrupt it makes a mockery of them laying the law down on clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 I'm pretty sure UEFA would've hired some quite good lawyers too. Ban came about after an investigation via CFCB (the Club Financial Control Body). The full judgement as and when it is released will be of interest. UEFA don't often lose at CAS or with respect to FFP there certainly! Other big hitters in breach of FFP. It's hard to say. Bayern Munich and Juventus are like German and Italian Man United equivalent. Could possibly get legit huge domestic sponsorships that are arms length. The big two in Spain is harder to call but also worth noting they have huge domestic fanbases. Man City would likely be in a bracket of legit FFP revenue NOW bit back then it's harder to say. Think statute of limitations didn't help UEFA, you can maybe blame old regime for that. Another aspect not so widely reported in general is that UEFA seemingly have something called 'settlement agreements'. Settlement agreements are whereby a club and UEFA agree to x basically. It's not a given and it's on a case by case basis, but UEFA in 2014 did fine Man City and squad size in CL was limited for a time. Think PSG had similar...perhaps had UEFA gone for the jugular in 2014 things could've panned out differently! I wonder if there is legal scope to simplify it. RPTs for sponsorship etc checked at the time, if adjusted for fair value puts you in breach you're OUT. Effective until the breach is remedied through legit means ie organic revenue growth, profit on player sales, wage bill trimmed. Wonder if Swiss or European law would allow? Seems mad that UEFA can't decide who enters THEIR own competitions however though I dare say there are legal reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 23 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I'm pretty sure UEFA would've hired some quite good lawyers too. Ban came about after an investigation via CFCB (the Club Financial Control Body). The full judgement as and when it is released will be of interest. UEFA don't often lose at CAS or with respect to FFP there certainly! Other big hitters in breach of FFP. It's hard to say. Bayern Munich and Juventus are like German and Italian Man United equivalent. Could possibly get legit huge domestic sponsorships that are arms length. The big two in Spain is harder to call but also worth noting they have huge domestic fanbases. Man City would likely be in a bracket of legit FFP revenue NOW bit back then it's harder to say. Think statute of limitations didn't help UEFA, you can maybe blame old regime for that. Another aspect not so widely reported in general is that UEFA seemingly have something called 'settlement agreements'. Settlement agreements are whereby a club and UEFA agree to x basically. It's not a given and it's on a case by case basis, but UEFA in 2014 did fine Man City and squad size in CL was limited for a time. Think PSG had similar...perhaps had UEFA gone for the jugular in 2014 things could've panned out differently! I wonder if there is legal scope to simplify it. RPTs for sponsorship etc checked at the time, if adjusted for fair value puts you in breach you're OUT. Effective until the breach is remedied through legit means ie organic revenue growth, profit on player sales, wage bill trimmed. Wonder if Swiss or European law would allow? Seems mad that UEFA can't decide who enters THEIR own competitions however though I dare say there are legal reasons. From what I read the stuff they really wanted to nail City on was beyond the time limitations and could therefore not be charged on it, add the fact information wasn't gained legally either. UEFA really didn't have a case against Man City by the seems of it but tried their luck anyway, they've got a cool 10m euros out of it at any rate (minus lawyer costs....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 In summary pretty much this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Lrrr said: From what I read the stuff they really wanted to nail City on was beyond the time limitations and could therefore not be charged on it, add the fact information wasn't gained legally either. UEFA really didn't have a case against Man City by the seems of it but tried their luck anyway, they've got a cool 10m euros out of it at any rate (minus lawyer costs....) It was past the 5 year statute of limitations it would seem. I don't know if the evidence being obtained as it was would have been decisive, or a deal breaker. Surely the whole case could've been thrown out if it was? UEFA have respected lawyers, isn't some bureaucrats- some of them too of course. The CFCB does too. The full judgement when (might that be if?) published will be interesting. Will look into who UEFA lawyers and investigators were, pretty sure they have some heavyweights. The settlement agreement that UEFA had in 2014 with Man City might have been a factor in them getting off too. https://www.danielgeey.com/post/uefa-settlement-sanctions-a-summary/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Lrrr said: From what I read the stuff they really wanted to nail City on was beyond the time limitations and could therefore not be charged on it, add the fact information wasn't gained legally either. UEFA really didn't have a case against Man City by the seems of it but tried their luck anyway, they've got a cool 10m euros out of it at any rate (minus lawyer costs....) It's worth noting that CAS concluded that those charges that were not time limited were not established. This is the equivalent of the verdict of not proven the Scottish courts have at their disposal rather than a not guilty verdict. If, as they claimed, City had irrefutable evidence of their innocence why did CAS not return a not guilty verdict? The whole thing is a mess, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 5 hours ago, walnutroof said: Don’t forget how uefa got the information in the first place via hacked emails, surely this ruling was inevitable as the information was gained illegally The full judgement will shed more light. Not sure that's a dealbreaker with this case. 26 minutes ago, chinapig said: It's worth noting that CAS concluded that those charges that were not time limited were not established. This is the equivalent of the verdict of not proven the Scottish courts have at their disposal rather than a not guilty verdict. If, as they claimed, City had irrefutable evidence of their innocence why did CAS not return a not guilty verdict? The whole thing is a mess, as usual. Yeah agreed- they were found innocent but not fully exonerated as such- if they were, why the 10 million euro fine for less than active cooperation? The UEFA statement is- well as you say about time-barred charges/allegations! Don't think this is the end of FFP...had it gone to a Federal Court it may have been but UEFA had to compromise with AC Milan in CAS in 2018, and FFP didn't get kicked out. Wonder if the full judgement will make reference to the settlement agreement several years ago between UEFA and Man City. Quite common with clubs and UEFA, especially at that time. Quote UEFA takes note of the decision taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport to reduce the sanction imposed on Manchester City FC by UEFA’s independent Club Financial Control Body for alleged breaches of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations. UEFA notes that the CAS panel found that there was insufficient conclusive evidence to uphold all of the CFCB’s conclusions in this specific case and that many of the alleged breaches were time-barred due to the 5 year time period foreseen in the UEFA regulations. Over the last few years, Financial Fair Play has played a significant role in protecting clubs and helping them become financially sustainable and UEFA and ECA remain committed to its principles. UEFA will be making no further comments on the matter. Here is the CAS media release too, dunno what to glean. Key section below. Following the hearing, the CAS Panel deliberated and concluded that the decision issued on 14 February 2020 by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB should be set aside and replaced by the following: a.) MCFC has contravened Article 56 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. b.) MCFC shall pay a fine of EUR 10,000,000 to the UEFA, within 30 days as from the date of issuance of the arbitral award. The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred. As the charges with respect to any dishonest concealment of equity funding were clearly more significant violations than obstructing the CFCB’s investigations, it was not appropriate to impose a ban on participating in UEFA’s club competitions for MCFC’s failure to cooperate with the CFCB’s investigations alone. https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf However, it would appear that there is no such time-bar on PL decisions. As we know the EFL regs are now quite aligned with those of the PL- implications for Aston Villa if/when they return? https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-premier-league-investigation-ffp-sponsorship-money-uefa-cas-appeal-536963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 13, 2020 Report Share Posted July 13, 2020 A good thread by Tariq Panja too. He highlights in one of his Tweets, the statute of limitation. UEFA's interpretation of this perhaps differed to the CAS one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 Another decent thread on it. Inclusive of Article 56 too. Is there a way that non-cooperation could be treated as a breach in of itself, worthy of say a one year ban? On that note, I wonder how CAS might have ruled had UEFA pushed for a one year ban only- we'll never know I guess! UEFA probably should beef up their Investigating teams, CFCB etc and explore the above- non-cooperation as a separate breach. Easy for me to say after the event of course! The fact that there was a settlement agreement in 2014 possibly didn't help matters? Interesting to see if the CAS reference it when the full verdict etc is published. Double jeopardy a factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 This morning on the radio, Alan Green was uttering his disgust over the difference in punishment for Man C and their near neighbours Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 7 minutes ago, 22A said: This morning on the radio, Alan Green was uttering his disgust over the difference in punishment for Man C and their near neighbours Wigan. I don't see how, UEFA couldn't prove Man City had done anything or was time barred and Wigan have received the standard punishment for a team in their position and you need to criticise the mis-management instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 CAS seem to have or be in the process of releasing the written reasons. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/28/cas-says-manchester-city-should-severely-reproached-obstructing/ "Severely reproached" Interesting, not quite the ringing endorsement that the likes of Neville would doubtless have declared. Not read the article yet, let alone the judgement but I wonder if that or if there is something in the judgement that'd enable UEFA to tighten up a stronger punishment for the non cooperation aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 Point I heard that I hadn't before, the English clubs wrote to CAS to complain about Man City requesting to be re-inserted into the champions League should they make it...... except Man City never requested it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Taylor Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 On 13/07/2020 at 09:45, Lrrr said: It’s a 10m fine reduced from 30m 10p reduced from 30p in the real world then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 On 13/07/2020 at 13:22, walnutroof said: Don’t forget how uefa got the information in the first place via hacked emails, surely this ruling was inevitable as the information was gained illegally A little update on this. I've certainly not looked at anything about it other than a few Tweets/media reports but it appears that the emails may NOT have been inadmissible. Didn't seen to be a factor in any case- Swiss law, Sport specific law, public interest considerations may all be factors. Point is they weren't inadmissible despite hacking claims it would seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 40 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: A little update on this. I've certainly not looked at anything about it other than a few Tweets/media reports but it appears that the emails may NOT have been inadmissible. Didn't seen to be a factor in any case- Swiss law, Sport specific law, public interest considerations may all be factors. Point is they weren't inadmissible despite hacking claims it would seem. Wasn't it a case they couldn't get the originals? Could've sworn I heard that earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 28, 2020 Report Share Posted July 28, 2020 16 minutes ago, Lrrr said: Wasn't it a case they couldn't get the originals? Could've sworn I heard that earlier Certainly worth exploring that further. Emails not inadmissible though, and UEFA/CAS need to come to some arrangement to tighten up for non-cooperation IMO. UEFA surely made procedural errors with respect to this case though, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 30, 2020 Report Share Posted July 30, 2020 Couple of interesting articles on it. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/uefa-claim-against-manchester-city-over-sponsor-money-time-barred-cas-rules https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/verdict-that-kept-manchester-city-in-europe-delivers-some-glancing-blows-cas-judgment https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/man-city-uefa-ban-appeal-cas-verdict-reasons-a9643511.html On 28/07/2020 at 21:47, Lrrr said: Point I heard that I hadn't before, the English clubs wrote to CAS to complain about Man City requesting to be re-inserted into the champions League should they make it...... except Man City never requested it. Think it was to do with the appeal dragging basically- getting a stay, ie still while playing while appeal heard if they finished in top 4 but the hearing went into 2021-22- EFL could learn a thing or two from CAS! There are still no written reasons for the Birmingham judgement from 2020 e.g.- none! Different cases but there should wherever possible be written reasons IMO. Oh yeah, the 9 clubs: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves. Possiobly slightly surprisingly no Sheffield United. They're a club who abided at our level, were quite pro it and who surely will, certainly while in the PL for the foreseeable. Indeed, looking at their forum and the fact they were still in the FA Cup and their run-in, they had a strong chance of either Europa League or CL. Had a strong chance- and a Man City ban would have strongly benefited them- a greater chance than at least two of the above and maybe more- yet quite happy to stay out of it. I wonder why. Two possible reasons. What Wilder said. Or The fact that Prince Abdullah their owner is a Saudi Royal, albeit not a major one- and they have a strategic alliance with UAE, wouldn't wish to damage it would we- and as a minor Royal he'll very much do what he's told! Couldn't be that, could it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 30, 2020 Report Share Posted July 30, 2020 Talking of written reasons- for anyone who is interested. Below! https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf I'm certainly no lawyer but dare say both sides had good ones- Man City had the greater number though, certainly! I dare say though that even if all cordial between the two sides post hearing, public domain etc, UEFA WILL be out for blood. Any future significant indicator of a breach breach, any significant possible slip-up by Man City will surely be seized on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.