MANCHESTER CITY can call on some of the top players in football to win their matches.
And they will now turn to some of the heavyweights of the legal world to help win their bitter battle with Uefa.
Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour is ready to sanction a big-money fight
One of the hacked emails published by Der Spiegel gave a hint of how hard City will fight their two-year Champions League ban.
The email from club lawyer Simon Cliff read: “Khaldoon said he would rather spend £30million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next ten years.”
Uefa already know this will not be the end of the matter.
The Premier League champions took the unusual step of going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport last year BEFORE their case had been heard by Uefa.
Back then they were represented by Monckton Chambers, as well as Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London and Kellerhals Carrard in Lugano, Switzerland.
They sent eight lawyers to that hearing, compared to just two from European football’s governing body.
CAS threw out the appeal saying “internal remedies” had not been exhausted, meaning the usual process had yet to be completed.
But there were other comments in the notes from that hearing, which were published last week, that could give City some hope.
The club had expressed concern about leaks to the media which showed Uefa had “systematically breached, and continues to breach, its duty of confidence” in the case.
And in throwing out City’s claim, CAS did say the appeal was “not without merit” and the alleged leaking of information by members of the investigation was “worrisome”.
City could now return to these issues as part of their battleplan.
‘FLAWED AND CONSISTENTLY LEAKED PROCESS’
They have questioned the way the documents were obtained, through the hacking of internal emails, calling for Uefa to launch an investigation into that.
But they have also been unhappy at the way Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body conducted their investigation.
The club referred to the “flawed and consistently leaked process” by a body that had already punished City heavily for Financial Fair Play breaches in 2014.
It added: “Simply put, this is a case initiated by Uefa, prosecuted by Uefa and judged by Uefa.”
When they first went to CAS in November, City argued the CFCB’s decision to refer the case to its adjudicatory chamber was taken “improperly and prematurely”.
CASE STUDY 1 – GALATASARAY
LIKE Manchester City, Galatasaray had already fallen foul of FFP rules.
When the Turkish giants failed to meet the terms of a break-even settlement imposed in 2014, Uefa brought a new case and hit them with a two-season ban in March 2016.
Galatasaray appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the thrust of their argument was FFP rules were illegal and anti-competitive.
CAS rejected that, saying the club had not produced sufficient evidence to show FFP breached EU law. City, and their battalion of lawyers, may well go down a similar route.
City and other clubs have always felt FFP was a way of protecting established clubs by preventing owners of other clubs investing heavily to compete.
Galatasaray blasted Uefa’s probe and City have similarly claimed it was flawed.
They are also likely to point to previous FFP cases in their bid to get the Uefa ban overturned.
CAS did wipe out a one-year ban on Italian club AC Milan over FFP, although it was then reinstated the following year.
Meanwhile, French giants Paris Saint-Germain were subject of a Uefa investigation over its FFP declarations and faced no punishment.
Ironically, the same Uefa prosecutor who acted in City’s case — Belgian Yves Leterme — decided the value of PSG’s sponsorship was more or less correct.
City are certain to feel their two-year ban and £25m fine is totally disproportionate.
It was only at the end of November that Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin was guest at a Champions League tie with Shakhtar Donetsk at the Etihad.
At the time, it looked like relations between the club and European football’s governing body, which have never been great, were starting to thaw.
Yet after Friday’s ruling, they are certain to be frostier than ever.
CASE STUDY 2 – AC MILAN
ITALIAN giants AC Milan were initially banned for two seasons in 2018 over FFP breaches.
But they were then allowed to enter the 2018-19 Europa League after appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, who ruled the punishment too harsh.
In the meantime, Uefa found evidence of fresh financial failings and launched a new case.
In the end, the club, Uefa and CAS came to an agreement last June that Milan would miss this season’s Europa League.
The club had finished fifth in Serie A, so sixth-placed Roma took their Euro spot. Seventh-placed Torino went into qualifying.
Uefa have made it clear they regard City’s breaches of rules and lack of co-operation as very serious offences.
But City lawyers could also try to argue the punishment does not fit the crime.
Source: Soccer - thesun.co.uk
