S
SEARCH
M
SW
/esi/1339/6_A_1_408275_0/index.html?art_id=408275&ESI

Man City 'could have avoided appeal process against European ban'

:Headline: Man City 'could have avoided appeal process against European ban': ID:408275: from db_amp
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has published its written reasons for overturning the two-year ban UEFA handed to City.

Manchester City may have been able to avoid their European ban and the lengthy appeal process needed to overturn it had they been more forthcoming during UEFA's original case against them, according to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Earlier this month, CAS overturned the two-year ban and reduced a fine of 30 million euros (£27million) to 10 million euros (£9million), saying that most of the alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play rules were either not established or time-barred.

The club were however punished for failing to cooperate with UEFA's process after failing to provide substantial amounts of evidence until they took the case before CAS.

Pep Guardiola's Manchester City had been faced with the prospect of a European ban (John Sibley/NMC Pool)

And the full reasoned decision in the case, published on Tuesday, suggested they may have been able to save a lot of time had they done so.

CAS indicated that witness statements from senior City executives as well as a letter from club owner Sheikh Mansour – all provided to CAS but not to UEFA during the first process – could have swung the original verdict in City's favour.

"The panel cannot put itself in the shoes of the Adjudicatory Chamber at the time of issuance of the appealed decision, but it finds that the possibility cannot be excluded that Adjudicatory Chamber may have reached the same conclusions as the panel in the present proceedings, had such evidence been made available to it," the decision said.

It added: "The appealed decision is therefore not per se wrong but, at least to a certain extent, is a consequence of MCFC's decision to produce the most relevant evidence at its disposal only in the present appeal proceedings before CAS."

CAS said it was "particularly serious" that City had not provided the original versions of the leaked emails to UEFA, having publicly relied on the defence that they were taken out of context.

But City had argued that UEFA's process was "flawed" and prejudicial, previously seeking to have the case against them thrown out.

City had been accused of circumventing FFP rules as leaked emails suggested sponsorship deals involving Etihad and Etisalat were in fact largely funded by Sheikh Mansour (Martin Rickett/PA)

When the two-year ban was announced in February, City said they had "always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position".

City had been accused of circumventing FFP rules as leaked emails suggested sponsorship deals involving Etihad and Etisalat were in fact largely funded by Sheikh Mansour, with UEFA claiming the sponsorship deals had been exaggerated to the tune of £204million.

But CAS found that the case involving Etisalat was time-barred, and said that while allegations relating to Etihad were only partially time-barred, the alleged wrongdoing had not been proven by UEFA.

The panel found "there is no doubt that Etihad fully complied with its payment obligation towards MCFC and that MCFC rendered the contractually agreed services to Etihad in return...

“The panel finds that the imposition of a fine lower than 10 million euros would not be a sufficiently strong deterrent and that MCFC's failure to cooperate with the CFCB investigation is to be strongly condemned.”
- Court of Arbitration for Sport

"There is no evidence that agreements were backdated or that MCFC otherwise retrospectively tried to cover up any alleged violations following the publication of the leaked emails."

The reasoned decision also reveals that City argued the fine should be reduced due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, taking into account the effect that it "has and may have for years to come on stadium attendance".

But that argument was dismissed by CAS, who said: "Although the landscape for football clubs has altered since the issuance of the appealed decision, MCFC does not argue that it is in a dire financial situation because of the pandemic.

"The panel finds that the imposition of a fine lower than 10 million euros would not be a sufficiently strong deterrent and that MCFC's failure to cooperate with the CFCB investigation is to be strongly condemned."

amp_article__408275 : Database Data restored...  : 
last updated article - 2020-07-28 18:34:12:
html db last update - 2021-02-25 12:36:47 :

ex - 7200 : read : read cache amp html

Manchester City banned from Europe - Click here for more stories

Click here for more stories about Manchester City

Share this article now:
Premier League Table
TeamPWDLFAGDPTS
1Manchester CityMan City25185250153559
2Manchester UnitedMan Utd25147453322149
3Leicester CityLeicester25154644271749
4West Ham UnitedWest Ham25136639291045
5Chelsea25127641251643
6Liverpool25117745341140
7Everton2412483733440
8Aston Villa23113937261136
9Tottenham HotspurSpurs24106837271036
10Leeds UnitedLeeds25112124343035
11Arsenal25104113126534
12Wolverhampton WanderersWolves2596102632-633
13Crystal Palace2595112943-1432
14Southampton2586113143-1230
15Burnley2577111830-1228
16Brighton & Hove AlbionBrighton2551192632-626
17Newcastle UnitedNewcastle2574142643-1725
18Fulham25410112132-1122
19West Bromwich AlbionWest Brom2528151955-3614
20Sheffield UnitedSheff Utd2532201541-2611
Scroll for more - Tap for full version

Subscribe to our Newsletter


Transfer Talk Daily
Match previews - twice weekly
Morning Briefing (7am UTC)
UC
Get the latest transfer news, match previews and news direct to your inbox!

Loading ...

Failed to load data.

Premier League Table
TeamPWDLFAGDPTS
1Manchester CityMan City25185250153559
2Manchester UnitedMan Utd25147453322149
3Leicester CityLeicester25154644271749
4West Ham UnitedWest Ham25136639291045
5Chelsea25127641251643
6Liverpool25117745341140
7Everton2412483733440
8Aston Villa23113937261136
9Tottenham HotspurSpurs24106837271036
10Leeds UnitedLeeds25112124343035
11Arsenal25104113126534
12Wolverhampton WanderersWolves2596102632-633
13Crystal Palace2595112943-1432
14Southampton2586113143-1230
15Burnley2577111830-1228
16Brighton & Hove AlbionBrighton2551192632-626
17Newcastle UnitedNewcastle2574142643-1725
18Fulham25410112132-1122
19West Bromwich AlbionWest Brom2528151955-3614
20Sheffield UnitedSheff Utd2532201541-2611
Scroll for more - Tap for full version
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X

We value your privacy

A part of our GDPR compliance we need to ask for your consent. We and our partners use technology such as cookies on Sports Mole to personalise content and ads, provide social media features, and analyse our traffic. Click below to consent to the use of this technology on Sports Mole.