- no they say this was not established or was time barred therefore they are not saying city broke FFP
- no they are saying they did not cooperate with the investigation
- some of them are too far back - some not proven
- 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 )
- 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
1. They say
most of the breaches are either not established or time-barred.
Most is doing a lot of work there, and even implies that there are breaches which are neither unestablished nor time-barred. But either way, CAS is unambiguously stating that City did do things that breached FFP.
2. Not cooperating with an investigation in this context did mean hiding offences
3. Ok, but this 'time-barring' is doing an awful lot of the heavy lifting. We can criticise UEFA for how the regulations we written, or for failing to investigate thoroughly enough within that period — but clearly they have breached the regulations otherwise no-one would need to mention the time that has elapsed.
4. Tomato tomato. I don't have the time or desire to read up on the original case but I will assume given City's attitude and behaviour in the leaked emails that they deliberately and intentionally mislead UEFA
5. It's more like disputing a parking ticket on the basis that you were never there, getting off, and then evidence later emerging that you
were there and should have an even greater fine. You take it to an arbitration court who rule that you cannot be fined because it was too long ago.
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
I don't think they expected the time-barring, 5 year statute of limitations excuse to pay off because, at face value, it's so incredibly dumb. I also am finding it incredibly hard to find anything explaining where it comes from. It appears City have exploited rules that were written re. a five year reporting period to generate a statute of limitations excuse, and that is a bullshit judgement from CAS.
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.
But why? If the failure to cooperate meant that CFCB was unable to find them guilty of violations that would have required a competition ban, then the non-cooperation should have been punished similarly.
I mean that just speaks to how much of joke the ruling is. 'A significant fine should be imposed' – continues to reduce an already insignifcant fine
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
They are going to have to revisit FFP. Salary cap incoming.
