yeah basically.
Given the leaked emails we know City did break FFP.
So the CAS ruling is
- City broke FFP - no they say this was not established or was time barred therefore they are not saying city broke FFP
- City hid this from authorities to avoid punishment - no they are saying they did not cooperate with the investigation
- These offences are now either too far in the past or covered by previous settlement - some of them are too far back - some not proven
- So we can only punish them for hiding things from authorities - for not cooperating which isnt the same thing as deliberatly hiding things (basically its being in a police station and saying no comment - CAS are saying in this case city could have been more helpful in establishing the facts - they are not saying city lied and deliberately hid facts )
what is completely corrupt is that if the punishment for hiding an offence is less than the punishment for the offence itself (which is what CAS has done), why would any rational club NOT hide/fail to cooperate. - on this point i agree but legaly I dont thnk you can force a club to cooperate unless its an investigation from say tax authorities etc
CAS essentially agrees there was even more deliberate rulebreaking than just FFP offences and yet deemed it worthy of reduced punishment?? - no cas says there is no proven rules broken within admissible time frames... I guess like if yu get sent a speeding fine or a parking ticket too late you can simply say its time barred so f off
If UEFA basically said we cant prove it but we think you did X and then imposed the sanctions they were stupid for letting it get this far - they need to sack their laywers and re-examine FFP as its clearly not something they themselves understand how to administer
Its in the media release
https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Media_Release_6785_Decision.pdf
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.
However, considering
i) the financial resources of MCFC;
ii) the importance of the cooperation of clubs in investigations conducted by the CFCB, because of its limited investigative means; and
iii)
MCFC’s disregard of such principle and its obstruction of the investigations, the CAS Panel found that a significant fine should be imposed on MCFC and considered it appropriate to reduce UEFA’s initial fine by 2/3, i.e. to the amount of EUR 10 million.
The final award with reasons will be published on the CAS website in a few days.
and UEFAS own statement
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.
https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/med...fa-statement-on-cas-manchester-city-decision/
the UEFA lawyers either knew that or are incompetent ... perhaps UEFA will change the time limit on their own rules but as I say perhaps fully revisiting FFP and how they administer it is a better starting point
