专注欧宝体育app,欧宝体育官方入口行业13年
源自英伦皇室呵护
欧宝体育app,欧宝体育官方入口特许经营备案
备案号:0320100111700070

首页 > 新闻资讯


欧宝体育app|曼城翻案背后的故事:判决书里究竟说了什么?



发布日期:2021-03-10 01:12:01 发布者:Admin5  点击率:

In the middle of last month, CAS announced the result of the judgment to the public, but at that time we could only deduce the situation that may arise in the arbitration from the result of the judgment. At the end of last month, the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) published the content of the arbitration judgment between Manchester City and UEFA on its official website. Now we can interpret the content of the verdict and see how Manchester City avoided the severe punishment of missing the European war.

上个月中旬,中科院向社会公布了判决结果,但当时我们只能从判决结果中推断出仲裁中可能出现的情况。上个月底,体育仲裁法院(CAS)在其官方网站上发布了曼彻斯特城与欧足联之间的仲裁裁决内容。现在我们可以解释判决的内容,看看曼城如何避免因错过欧洲战争而受到的严厉惩罚。

One more thing is that the arbitration judgment not only has 93 pages, but the PDF file provided by CAS is also unable to retrieve the scanned copy of the specific text content, which is different from the format they usually publish.

还有一点是,仲裁判决不仅有93页,而且CAS提供的PDF文件也无法检索特定文本内容的扫描副本,这与通常发布的格式不同。

First of all, we still have to start with the reasons why Manchester City applied for arbitration. This arbitration is the second arbitration initiated by Manchester City against UEFA in CAS, and the reasons for the two are different.

首先,我们仍然必须从曼彻斯特市申请仲裁的原因开始。该仲裁是曼彻斯特城针对CAS中的UEFA发起的第二次仲裁,两者的原因有所不同。

The Investigation Office decided to re-investigate the financial fraud problems in Manchester City based on the content leaked by the Football Decryption website, and submit the Referral Decision to the Ruling Office, and rejected the request of Manchester City to suspend the trial.

调查办公室决定根据足球解密网站泄漏的内容重新调查曼彻斯特市的财务欺诈问题,并将推荐决定提交裁决办公室,并拒绝了曼彻斯特市中止审判的请求。

Manchester City appealed to the investigative office’s punishment opinions because they were unable to make their own interpretation of the case after the case entered the adjudication office trial stage, but at this time the case did not finally reach a specific punishment conclusion.

曼彻斯特市呼吁调查办公室的处罚意见,因为他们无法在案件进入裁决办公室审判阶段后对案件做出自己的解释,但此时此案最终没有得出具体的处罚结论。

In February of this year, the ruling office made a final penalty decision (Appealed Decision) for the investigation office's penalty opinion after restarting the investigation, and then UEFA officially announced the result. Manchester City appealed this penalty to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS). This time Manchester City is targeting UEFA's final punishment result after the end of the case trial process.

今年2月,裁决办公室在重新启动调查后,对调查办公室的处罚意见做出了最终的处罚决定(上诉决定),然后欧足联正式宣布了结果。曼彻斯特市向体育仲裁法院(CAS)上诉。这次曼彻斯特市将针对案件审判程序结束后的欧足联最终处罚结果。

Before entering the core topic, we need to add a background content and the determination of evidence in the trial.

在进入核心主题之前,我们需要在试验中添加背景内容和证据确定。

As we all know, before Manchester City was punished by UEFA in February this year, they had encountered UEFA punishment for financial problems during the same period. Under the FFP mechanism, the club can reach a settlement with the investigative office of the CFCB, an independent institution under UEFA, and "confess guilt" in a compromise manner, thereby seeking a lower level of punishment.

众所周知,在曼彻斯特市于今年2月受到UEFA处罚之前,他们在同一时期曾因财务问题受到UEFA处罚。在FFP机制下,俱乐部可以与CFCB的调查办公室(欧洲足联下属的独立机构)达成和解,并以妥协的方式“认罪”,从而寻求较低程度的惩罚。

From a standpoint, in the final analysis, FFP is a rule that encourages clubs to operate in a healthy financial situation. Therefore, UEFA does not want to “kill” the club in this way. They seem to be looking for an attitude.

从最终的角度来看,FFP是鼓励俱乐部在健康财务状况下运作的规则。因此,欧洲足联不想以此方式“杀死”俱乐部。他们似乎正在寻找一种态度。

In 2014, Manchester City reached a Settlement Agreement with the Investigation Office. Under the settlement agreement, in order to meet the FFP balance of payments requirements, Manchester City and UEFA have reached a special settlement mechanism (Settlement Regime) in terms of financial accounting, which has clear and special restrictions on the club’s financial situation. . Both parties withdrew from this accounting mechanism in 2017.

2014年,曼彻斯特市与调查办公室达成和解协议。根据和解协议,为了满足FFP国际收支的要求,曼城和UEFA在财务会计方面达成了特殊的结算机制(和解制度),这对俱乐部的财务状况有明确和特殊的限制。 。双方于2017年退出了该会计机制。

In the course of this trial, whether the leaked email can be used as evidence has become a key topic before the arbitration enters the core issue. Both Manchester City and UEFA have given their own interpretations.

在本次审判过程中,在仲裁进入核心问题之前,是否可以将泄漏的电子邮件用作证据已成为关键话题。曼城和欧洲足联都有自己的解释。

Manchester City did not deny or acknowledge the authenticity of the contents of the leaked emails. They only stated that these emails were obtained by illegal hackers. Manchester City believes that leaked emails cannot be used as evidence, because the rights of Manchester City as an individual are more protected than public interests.

曼彻斯特城没有否认或承认泄漏的电子邮件内容的真实性。他们只说这些电子邮件是由非法黑客获得的。曼彻斯特市认为,泄漏的电子邮件不能用作证据,因为曼彻斯特市作为个人的权利比公共利益受到更多保护。

UEFA believes that public interest is based on facts, and based on the facts of this case, the public interest here is higher than Manchester City’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of their business communications.

UEFA认为公共利益是基于事实的,并且基于此案的事实,此处的公共利益高于曼彻斯特市在保护其业务通信的机密性方面的利益。

The first is the authenticity of the mail. The CAS arbitration panel believes that since Manchester City finally submitted the unedited mail as evidence, there is no problem in terms of authenticity.

首先是邮件的真实性。 CAS仲裁小组认为,自从曼彻斯特市最终提交未经编辑的邮件作为证据以来,就真实性而言没有问题。

However, the fourth email still covers part of the smeared area. In addition, Manchester City did not provide the content of the attachment to the third email. Manchester City also stated that the contents of the leaked emails submitted in the arbitration are true.

但是,第四封电子邮件仍覆盖部分涂片区域。此外,曼城未提供第三封电子邮件的附件内容。曼彻斯特市还表示,仲裁中提交的泄漏电子邮件的内容是真实的。

Compared with the content of the emails submitted by Manchester City, the content of the leaked emails that the media broke before was selected from specific emails and deleted specific information. However, the CAS arbitration panel determined that this does not affect the accuracy of the leaked emails based on UEFA's previous penalty.

与曼彻斯特城提交的电子邮件的内容相比,从特定电子邮件中选择了媒体打破之前泄漏的电子邮件的内容,并删除了特定信息。但是,CAS仲裁小组根据UEFA的先前处罚确定这不会影响泄漏电子邮件的准确性。

Manchester City subsequently stated that based on the Portuguese court's judgment on the hackers involved, the access to the leaked emails was illegal, so it could not be used as evidence against the victims.

曼彻斯特市随后表示,根据葡萄牙法院对涉​​及的黑客的判决,访问泄漏的电子邮件是非法的,因此不能用作针对受害者的证据。

The CAS arbitration panel believes that the information used by UEFA in the process of investigation and punishment is available to the public, so there is no illegal hacking in UEFA itself.

CAS仲裁小组认为,UEFA在调查和处罚过程中使用的信息是公开的,因此UEFA本身没有非法黑客行为。

In addition, according to Swiss law, such evidence is acceptable; CFCB procedures and regulations do not restrict this method of obtaining evidence.

此外,根据瑞士法律,此类证据是可以接受的; CFCB程序和法规不限制这种获取证据的方法。

Then entered the core part of the arbitration. Manchester City and UEFA faced off on a total of 7 issues. Let's take a look at the contents below.

然后进入仲裁的核心部分。曼彻斯特城和欧足联共面对7个问题。让我们看一下下面的内容。

Manchester City pointed out that the investigative office had prematurely made a penalty opinion to prevent the club from explaining the key issues in the case, and believed that the ruling office had pre-set incorrect assumptions when making the penalty decision. UEFA believes that there are no flaws in the trial process.

曼彻斯特城指出,调查办公室为防止俱乐部解释此案的关键问题过早提出了处罚意见,并认为裁决办公室在做出处罚决定时预先设定了错误的假设。欧足联认为,审判过程中没有缺陷。

The CAS arbitration panel believes that the leaked emails showed Manchester City’s related party transaction issues, but even if there were no leaked emails, the relevant still exists. The Investigation Office and the Adjudication Office have reason to conclude that Manchester City has issues with related party transactions. The party failed to fulfill the obligation of notification.

CAS仲裁小组认为,泄漏的电子邮件表明曼彻斯特市的关联方交易有问题,但是即使没有泄漏的电子邮件,相关的邮件仍然存在。调查办公室和裁决办公室有理由得出结论,曼彻斯特市存在与关联方交易有关的问题。当事人未履行通知义务。

In addition, Manchester City believes that the investigative office's early disclosure of handling opinions has adversely affected Manchester City. According to the FFP's case trial process, the final trial results will not be released until the ruling office has reached a final conclusion, but some media broke the news when the investigation office was about to reach a conclusion.

此外,曼彻斯特市认为,调查办公室过早披露处理意见会对曼彻斯特市造成不利影响。根据FFP的案件审理程序,最终裁决结果将在裁定办公室达成最终结论之前予以公布,但是当调查办公室即将达成结论时,一些媒体爆料了这一消息。

In this appeal, Manchester City also mentioned this when it involved related parties, and questioned the fairness and confidentiality, which was also the issue that Manchester City raised when it first appealed to CAS last year. UEFA once again emphasized that there is no problem with its trial procedures.

在本次上诉中,曼彻斯特市在涉及到相关方时也提到了这一点,并质疑公平性和保密性,这也是曼彻斯特市去年首次向CAS提出上诉时提出的问题。欧足联再次强调其审判程序没有问题。

The CAS arbitration team believes that regardless of whether the staff of the investigation office leaked the information, it will not affect the impartiality of their penalties; the occurrence of leaks will not invalidate the penalties of the adjudication office.

CAS仲裁小组认为,欧宝体育app无论调查办公室的工作人员是否泄漏信息,都不会影响其处罚的公正性。泄漏的发生不会使裁决办公室的处罚无效。

Manchester City believes that UEFA's investigation violated the previous settlement agreement and the CFCB's approach is not in compliance.

曼城认为,欧足联的调查违反了先前的和解协议,CFCB的做法未得到遵守。

In April 2017, the Investigation Office confirmed that Manchester City had completed the final goals set in the settlement agreement in compliance with the settlement agreement, and in accordance with the procedures, withdrew from the accounting mechanism required in the content.

2017年4月,调查办公室确认曼彻斯特城已按照和解协议完成了和解协议中设定的最终目标,并按照程序退出了内容中要求的会计机制。

Simply put, Manchester City believes that the club has been punished and rectified in accordance with UEFA's requirements for the previous problems, and the club does not need to accept a second penalty.

简而言之,曼彻斯特城认为俱乐部已经按照欧洲足联对先前问题的要求进行了处罚和整顿,俱乐部无需接受第二次处罚。

The CAS arbitration panel believes that the new evidence that appears later may lead to differences in the results of the investigation. Therefore, the investigation office and the CFCB may change the punishment when establishing the settlement agreement.

CAS仲裁小组认为,稍后出现的新证据可能会导致调查结果出现差异。因此,调查办公室和CFCB可以在建立和解协议时更改处罚。

However, it should be noted that the legality of the new evidence is not discussed here.

但是,应该指出的是,这里不讨论新证据的合法性。

Manchester City believes that the adjudication office has exceeded the five-year time limit set by the FFP when making a penalty decision. Manchester City said in a reverse way that since the penalty results were announced on February 14, 2020, according to the five-year time limit, the cases that UEFA can investigate and prosecute should occur after February 14, 2015.

曼城认为,在做出处罚决定时,裁判所已经超过了FFP设定的五年期限。曼彻斯特城以相反的方式表示,自从2020年2月14日宣布处罚结果以来,根据五年期限,欧洲足联可以调查和起诉的案件应在2015年2月14日之后发生。

UEFA believes that this time point should be calculated when the investigation office starts the investigation, so it does not violate the investigation time limit. The investigation started on March 7, 2019, so the cases after March 7, 2014 did not exceed the time limit.

UEFA认为应该在调查办公室开始调查时计算该时间点,因此它不会违反调查时间限制。该调查于2019年3月7日开始,因此2014年3月7日之后的案件未超过时限。

Subsequently, the CAS arbitration panel interpreted the difference between "prosecution" and "sanction".

随后,CAS仲裁小组解释了“起诉”和“制裁”之间的区别。

However, they also believe that UEFA's investigation of a club does not mean that the prosecution must be made at the same time. The establishment of the time limit period is fundamentally for legal certainty. In order to avoid uncertainty and suspicion, the investigation phase should also be counted within the five-year time limit.

但是,他们也认为,欧洲足联对俱乐部的调查并不意味着必须同时进行起诉。期限的确定从根本上是为了法律确定性。为了避免不确定性和怀疑,调查阶段也应计入五年期限内。

In short,

简而言之,

From this extension, the CAS arbitration team pointed out that UEFA seems to be deliberately operating at this point in time to avoid possible problems. Their settlement agreement with Manchester City was reached on May 16, 2014, and after the resumption of the investigation, the investigation office submitted its handling opinions on May 15, 2019, just one day ahead of the five-year time limit.

在此扩展中,CAS仲裁团队指出,UEFA似乎正在刻意地进行操作以避免可能的问题。他们与曼彻斯特市的和解协议已于2014年5月16日达成,在恢复调查后,调查办公室于2019年5月15日(即五年期限的前一天)提交了处理意见。

From this point of view, in order to avoid violating the five-year time limit, UEFA deliberately let this time point fall within the validity period of the settlement agreement.

从这个角度来看,为了避免违反五年期限,欧足联特意将此时间落入和解协议的有效期内。

However, it is inferred that Manchester City’s financial report submitted after May 2014 was approved by the Manchester City Board of Directors on October 9, 2014, so the submission to UEFA will only be later.

但是,可以推断,2014年5月之后提交的曼彻斯特市财务报告已于2014年10月9日获得曼彻斯特市董事会的批准,因此,向欧洲足联提交的报告只会在以后提交。

Therefore, the ruling office's penalty decision for Manchester City's violations during this period of time is within the time limit, in other words, compliance.

因此,对于这段时间内曼彻斯特市的违规行为,裁决办公室的处罚决定在期限内,换言之,即为合规。

The FFP supervision period of the 2014-15 season involves the fiscal years ending in May 2014 (T), May 2013 (T-1) and May 2012 (T-2). The period is within the time limit, and the relevant financial information submitted by Manchester City is after May 15, 2014.

2014-15赛季的FFP监督期包括2014年5月(T),2013年5月(T-1)和2012年5月(T-2)结束的财政年度。该期限在期限内,曼城提交的相关财务信息在2014年5月15日之后。

However, the CAS arbitration panel believes that for the violation issue, although the relevant time point was not calculated from March 7, 2014, but on May 15, this year, this did not cause any impact on the handling decision made by the ruling office. Substantial difference.

但是,CAS仲裁小组认为,对于违规问题,虽然相关时间点不是从2014年3月7日算起的,但从今年5月15日算起,这对裁决办公室的处理决定没有任何影响。 。实质性差异。

In the end, the CAS arbitration panel determined that the violations involved in the two financial reports of T-2 and T-1 were beyond the time limit, while the financial report of T was within the time limit.

最终,CAS仲裁小组确定T-2和T-1的两个财务报告中涉及的违规行为均超出了时限,而T的财务报告在时限内。

From an extended point of view, the financial report information involved in the supervision period of the 2013-14 season is outside the time limit, while the supervision period of the 2014-15 season is the opposite.

从广义上讲,2013-14年度监管期所涉及的财务报告信息不在时限之内,而2014-15年度监管期所涉及的财务报告信息则相反。

Then there is a problem: since the financial report content during the supervision period of the 2013-14 season exceeds the time limit, the content submitted in the 2014-15 season also includes the content of the two fiscal years of T-1 and T-2. The content of the fiscal year exceeded the time limit in the previous regulatory period, but has not exceeded the time limit in the latter regulatory period, so does the time limit for prosecuting the content exceed the time limit?

然后就有一个问题:由于2013-14年度监管期间的财务报告内容超过了时限,因此2014-15年度提交的内容还包括T-1和T两个会计年度的内容-2。会计年度的内容超过了前一个法规期限的期限,但没有超过后一个法规期限的期限,那么起诉内容的期限是否超过了期限?

The CAS arbitration panel believes that in the case of duplicate content in the two regulatory periods, it should be handled in the first submission. Since the previous regulatory period has exceeded the time limit, the content submitted in the latter regulatory period The existing duplicate content also exceeds the time limit.

CAS仲裁小组认为,如果两个监管期内的内容重复,则应在首次提交时进行处理。由于前一个监管期限已超过时间限制,因此在后一个监管期限中提交的内容现有的重复内容也超过了期限。

On the one hand, UEFA has the responsibility to prove Manchester City’s violations, while on the other hand, Manchester City believes that the ruling office did not correctly implement the standards for obtaining evidence when making a penalty decision, and said that the ruling office should have known it long ago. When collecting evidence, we must adhere to the principle of "the more severe the accusation, the more reliable evidence is needed."

一方面,欧足联有责任证明曼彻斯特市的违规行为;另一方面,曼彻斯特市认为,裁决机关在做出处罚决定时未正确执行获取证据的标准,并表示裁决机关应很早以前就知道了。在收集欧宝体育官方入口证据时,我们必须坚持“指控越严厉,就需要越可靠的证据”的原则。

Manchester City believes that the club faces the most severe punishment in FFP, so the standard of evidence collection should be raised accordingly.

曼城认为,俱乐部在FFP中面临最严厉的处罚,因此应相应提高举证标准。

Obviously, Manchester City is here to point the finger at the credibility and legitimacy of the evidence. They believe that the evidence that UEFA has obtained against Manchester City is based entirely on leaked emails, which are indirect evidence collections. They also took out the 2011 arbitration verdict of former AFC President Harman and FIFA and Russian skier Alexander- An example of the 2017 arbitration judgment between Lefkov and the International Olympic Committee.

显然,曼彻斯特城是在指责证据的可信性和合法性。他们认为,欧洲足联针对曼彻斯特城获得的证据完全基于泄漏的电子邮件,这是间接的证据收集。他们还取消了前亚足联主席哈曼和国际足联以及俄罗斯滑雪运动员2011年的仲裁裁决-这是列夫科夫与国际奥委会之间2017年仲裁裁决的一个例子。

Of course, there is no specific discussion of the content of the mail. At this point, the CAS arbitration panel believes that the adjudication office has the ability to make amendments based on the penalty opinion and finally make a penalty decision, so it has the ability to judge the source of evidence.

当然,对邮件的内容没有具体的讨论。至此,CAS仲裁小组认为,审判机关有能力根据处罚意见进行修正,最终做出处罚决定,因此具有判断证据来源的能力。

Subsequently, regarding the content of the leaked email, the arbitration parties and the CAS arbitration team discussed the value of the evidence behind it.

随后,关于泄漏的电子邮件的内容,仲裁方和CAS仲裁小组讨论了其背后证据的价值。

In the explanation of the punishment results of the ruling office, they stated that the leaked email content provided direct evidence of the violation. The case was neither a conclusion based on inference nor circumstantial evidence.

在解释裁决办公室的处罚结果时,他们说,泄露的电子邮件内容直接提供了违反行为的证据。该案既不是基于推断的结论,也不是间接证据。

However, the CAS arbitration panel did not support this statement. They believe that Manchester City should not be sued for trying to cover up the content of the sponsorship agreement, but for submitting inaccurate and incomplete financial information;

但是,CAS仲裁小组不支持该声明。他们认为,曼彻斯特城不应因为试图掩盖赞助协议的内容而被起诉,而应因提交不准确和不完整的财务信息而受到起诉;

UEFA needs to prove whether the sponsorship issue discussed in the leaked email really exists and is implemented. The leaked email alone is not sufficient evidence.

UEFA需要证明泄漏的电子邮件中讨论的赞助问题是否确实存在并已实施。仅泄漏的电子邮件还不足以作为证据。

From the perspective of witness testimony, since the parties who collected the evidence were all stakeholders of Manchester City, including the club's senior management and the sponsor's senior management, it is fair to see that all witnesses would deny the capital injection. But frankly speaking, in addition to witnesses from the club's affiliates, it seems difficult to collect evidence from other witnesses.

从证人证词的角度来看,由于收集证据的各方都是曼城的欧宝体育官方入口所有利益相关者,包括俱乐部的高级管理层和赞助商的高级管理层,因此可以公平地看到所有证人都拒绝注资。但是坦率地说,除了俱乐部会员的证人外,似乎很难从其他证人那里收集证据。

From the perspective of accounting evidence, Manchester City invited senior executives from Arrow Platinum to attend by video conference call, and submitted a summary report based on Ernst & Young's audit report.

从会计证据的角度来看,曼城邀请了Arrow Platinum的高级管理人员参加视频电话会议,并根据安永会计师事务所的审计报告提交了摘要报告。

Although this report seems flawless, UEFA and the CAS arbitration panel both pointed out that the Ernst & Young report is not an independent third party in nature and therefore has limited persuasive power, and believes that it is still insufficient to fully explain Manchester City at the time. There is no problem of invisible capital injection.

尽管这份报告看似完美无瑕,但欧洲足联和CAS仲裁小组均指出,安永报告本质上不是独立的第三方,因此说服力有限,并认为仍不足以在曼彻斯特市充分解释曼彻斯特市。时间。没有无形的注资问题。

But in the same way, the CAS arbitration panel also believes that the experts invited by UEFA conducted the investigation with the premise that Manchester City have hidden capital injection, and therefore they are also not convincing. Since the chain of evidence has not been formed, it is difficult for UEFA to attack Manchester City from this perspective.

但是以同样的方式,CAS仲裁小组也认为,欧洲足联邀请的专家进行调查的前提是曼城隐藏了注资,因此他们也不令人信服。由于尚未形成证据链,因此从这个角度来看,欧足联很难进攻曼城。

On this issue, UEFA first stated that Manchester City had repeatedly refused to answer relevant questions, provide relevant documents, and refused to arrange relevant personnel to attend the investigation, and even arranged for the experts they hired to cover up on certain specific issues. , To avoid positive answers. However, judging from the content of the penalty decision, Manchester City only failed to perform their duty of cooperation in two specific areas.

关于这一问题,欧足联首先表示,曼彻斯特市一再拒绝回答相关问题,提供相关文件,并拒绝安排相关人员参加调查,甚至拒绝他们雇用的专家掩盖某些特定问题。 ,避免正面回答。但是,从处罚决定的内容来看,曼城只是未能在两个特定领域履行合作义务。

One is the wrong interpretation of the collection. The two payments involving Emirates Telecom received by Manchester City in 2012 and 2013 are related to UEFA allegations.

一种是对馆藏的错误解释。曼彻斯特城在2012年和2013年收到的涉及阿联酋电信的两笔付款均与UEFA的指控有关。

UEFA pointed out that the information in this area does not match what they were told at the time and penalized based on it. However, due to the time limit exceeded, UEFA's penalty in this regard is untenable.

欧足联指出,这方面的信息与当时所告知的信息不符,并据此予以处罚。但是,由于超过了时间限制,欧洲足联在这方面的惩罚是站不住脚的。

And UEFA also has flaws in the investigation process, which has made a wrong understanding. Therefore, the CAS arbitration panel believes that Manchester City cannot be punished based on this situation.

而且UEFA在调查过程中也存在缺陷,这导致了错误的理解。因此,CAS仲裁小组认为,曼彻斯特城不能基于这种情况受到惩罚。

The second is the lack of cooperation between Manchester City in the investigation. According to the CAS arbitration team, Manchester City did not submit all the investigation materials to the CFCB. In this arbitration, Manchester City submitted some evidence that the CFCB never received.

其次是曼彻斯特市之间在调查方面缺乏合作。根据CAS仲裁小组的说法,曼彻斯特市没有将所有调查材料提交给CFCB。在该仲裁中,曼城提交了一些证据,表明CFCB从未收到。

However, the arbitration panel determined that Manchester City should not be punished for failing to submit the complete leaked email content (because it not only contains content related to Manchester City’s FFP, but also other information) and content unrelated to the case.

但是,仲裁小组裁定,曼彻斯特市因未提交完整的泄漏电子邮件内容(因为它不仅包含与曼彻斯特市FFP相关的内容,而且还包含其他信息)和与本案无关的内容,不应受到惩罚。

Nevertheless, when it comes to some of the key evidence in this case, the situation began to be disadvantageous for Manchester City.

然而,当涉及到此案的一些关键证据时,曼彻斯特城的情况开始变得不利。

First, when the CFCB investigated the parties in the leaked email, Manchester City ignored them, but they appeared as witnesses in the arbitration.

首先,当CFCB在泄露的电子邮件中调查了当事方时,曼城忽略了他们,但他们在仲裁中作为证人出现。

Second, in one of the leaked emails, the word "Muhammad" was mentioned. The chief investigator once sent a letter to inquire who the name corresponds to Manchester City, and asked the club to make clarification and explanation. However, Manchester City also chose Do not respond, but choose to express in this arbitration.

其次,在一封泄露的电子邮件中,提到了“穆罕默德”一词。首席调查员曾经寄信询问谁的名字与曼彻斯特城相对应,并要求俱乐部做出澄清和解释。但是,曼城也选择不回应,而是选择在此仲裁中表达。

Third, the chief investigator once asked Manchester City to provide complete and accurate leaked emails. However, Manchester City only partially met the CFCB's requirements in the arbitration a year later. The CAS arbitration panel believes that the chief investigator’s request is reasonable. Based on the relevant provisions of the FFP, Manchester City has no reason to refuse such a request for evidence collection (it is not difficult to speculate that the difference here is that it involves financial information related to Manchester City. In the content of the email, Manchester City needs to provide accurate and detailed information to the CFCB).

第三,首席调查员曾经要求曼彻斯特市提供完整且准确的泄漏电子邮件。但是,一年后,曼彻斯特市在仲裁中仅部分满足了CFCB的要求。 CAS仲裁小组认为首席调查员的要求是合理的。根据FFP的相关规定,曼彻斯特市没有理由拒绝这样的证据收集请求(不难推测此处的区别在于涉及曼彻斯特市的财务信息。在电子邮件中,曼城需要向CFCB提供准确和详细的信息)。

The CAS arbitration panel believes that UEFA’s main penalty was based on Manchester City’s cover-up of invisible capital injections when receiving sponsorships from Etisalat and Etihad. It submitted inaccurate financial information, but this was rejected by them.

CAS仲裁小组认为,欧洲足联的主要处罚依据是曼彻斯特城在收到阿联酋航空和阿提哈德的赞助时掩盖了无形的注资。它提交了不准确的财务信息,但遭到他们的拒绝。

They said that all sponsorship issues involving Etihad Telecom exceeded the time limit, while the sponsorship issues involved in Etihad partially exceeded the time limit, and the evidence in this trial was not sufficient to show that Manchester City did indeed have implicit capital injection. It is impossible to conclude that Manchester City violated the rules in this regard.

他们说,与阿提哈德电信有关的所有赞助问题都超过了时限,而与阿提哈德有关的赞助问题部分超过了时限,并且该审判中的证据不足以表明曼城确实确实存在隐性注资。不可能断定曼城在这方面违反了规则。

However, they believed that Manchester City had failed to cooperate in the CFCB investigation and talked about the issue that the content of the leaked email was not released to the CFCB in a timely manner.

但是,他们认为曼彻斯特市未能在CFCB调查中进行合作,并讨论了泄漏的电子邮件内容没有及时发布给CFCB的问题。

1. The arbitration panel found that the CFCB did not act ultra vires during the investigation, which is in line with procedural justice

1.仲裁小组认为,CFCB在调查过程中没有越权行为,这符合程序正义

2. The previous settlement agreement between Manchester City and UEFA does not prevent UEFA from prosecuting and punishing the possible violations of Manchester City during the arbitration.

2.曼彻斯特市与欧足联之间的先前和解协议并未阻止欧足联在仲裁期间起诉和惩罚可能违反曼彻斯特市的行为。

3. Manchester City's two financial reports as of May 2012 and May 2013 involved content that exceeded the five-year time limit, but the violations involved in the financial report as of May 2014 did not Time limit exceeded

3.曼彻斯特城截至2012年5月和2013年5月的两份财务报告涉及的内容超过了五年期限,但截至2014年5月财务报告涉及的违规未超过期限

4. The content of the financial information submitted by Manchester City during the supervision period of the 2013-14 season exceeds the five-year time limit, but the content of the supervision period of the 2014-15 season does not

4.曼彻斯特城在2013-14赛季的监管期内提交的财务信息的内容超过了五年期限,但2014-15赛季的监管期间的内容并未

5. The financial information of the same fiscal year involved in the two regulatory cycles needs to be investigated based on the situation when it was first submitted

5.涉及两个监管周期的同一会计年度的财务信息需要根据首次提交时的情况进行调查

6. The investigation into the sponsorship of Etisalat’s cover-up of capital injection has exceeded the five-year time limit

6.对Etisalat的隐瞒注资赞助的调查已超过五年期限

7. In this arbitration, the content of the leaked email is admissible evidence

7.在本仲裁中,泄漏电子邮件的内容是可接受的证据

8. In the process of this arbitration, the CAS arbitration panel could not determine that the sponsorship received by Manchester City from Etihad included the invisible capital injection from Chief Mansour/ADUG

8.在该仲裁过程中,CAS仲裁小组无法确定曼城从阿提哈德获得的赞助是否包括曼苏尔/ ADUG酋长的无形注资。

9. The CAS arbitration panel believes that Manchester City did not cooperate with the CFCB investigation on two different issues.

9. CAS仲裁小组认为,曼彻斯特市未与CFCB在两个不同问题上的调查合作。

10. The CAS arbitration panel ruled that it is appropriate to punish Manchester City by 10 million euros

10. CAS仲裁小组裁定,对曼城处以1000万欧元的罚款

11. Manchester City initiates an arbitration with CAS regarding the penalty decision, and it shall pay UEFA EUR 100,000 as compensation for CFCB litigation costs

11.曼城将就处罚决定向CAS提起仲裁,并应向UEFA支付100,000欧元作为CFCB诉讼费用的赔偿

After the verdict was released, some people claimed that 2 of the 3 members of the CAS arbitration panel were appointed by Manchester City, indicating that from this perspective, the arbitration was unfair from the beginning. But this statement seems to be different from the actual situation.

判决书发布后,有人声称CAS仲裁小组的3名成员中有2名是由曼彻斯特市任命的,这表明从这个角度讲,仲裁从一开始就是不公平的。但是这个说法似乎与实际情况有所不同。

According to R40 of the "Sports Arbitration Code", when three arbitrators form an arbitration panel, each party shall appoint one, and the other shall be elected by the two arbitrators upon mutual agreement. Judging from the content of the judgment, it notes that UEFA has no objections after Manchester City elects one person, and it is finalized.

根据《体育仲裁法》第40条的规定,当三名仲裁员组成一个仲裁小组时,每一方均应指定一方,另一方应由两名仲裁员共同协商选出。从判决的内容来看,它指出,欧足联在曼城选出一个人后没有异议,并已定案。

And here "Man City" and "UEFA" should also refer to the arbitrator appointed by both parties, so this point is not a problem in terms of procedure.

在这里,“曼城”和“欧洲足联”也应指双方指定的仲裁员,因此这一点在程序上不是问题。

After UEFA made a penalty decision, Manchester City decided to initiate an arbitration in CAS. In the period between the penalty decision and the start of the arbitration, UEFA conducted evidence collection based on the previous evidence and did not further excavate new evidence.

在UEFA做出处罚决定后,曼城决定在CAS中提起仲裁。在处罚决定到仲裁开始之间的期间,欧足联根据以前的证据进行了证据收集,没有进一步挖掘新证据。

Judging from the content of the judgment, UEFA has actually realized that Manchester City will add new evidence, and they hope to end the arbitration as soon as possible to avoid affecting the new season, so I hope that the arbitration performance will not become more complicated.

从判决的内容来看,欧足联实际上已经意识到曼城将会增加新的证据,他们希望尽快结束仲裁以避免对新赛季产生影响,所以希望仲裁的表现不会变得更加复杂。 。

UEFA suffers more than this. Some people say that Manchester City wins by numbers, saying that they have sent a team of up to 12 lawyers, while UEFA has only 6 people.

欧足联遭受的痛苦不止此。有人说曼城以数字获胜,说他们派出了一支由多达12名律师组成的团队,而欧洲足联只有6人。

On the other hand, UEFA does have the problem of lack of skills, because shortly after the conclusion of this arbitration, the arbitration between UEFA and Trabzonspor in CAS also came to a result. They need to face The challenge is not only for Manchester City.

另一方面,UEFA确实存在缺乏技能的问题,因为在此仲裁结束后不久,UEFA与CAS中的Trabzonspor之间的仲裁也随之产生。他们需要面对挑战不仅是曼城。

It is not difficult to find that the witnesses on the Manchester City side have a clear interest relationship, so they will inevitably protect the interests of Manchester City.

不难发现,曼彻斯特市一方的证人之间有着明确的利益关系,因此,他们不可避免地会保护曼彻斯特城的利益。

In this arbitration, under the premise of limited leaked emails, it is difficult to make a breakthrough in obtaining evidence from witnesses. The CAS arbitration panel believes that the report provided by the consulting company hired by Manchester City is not convincing. If this standard is followed, the witness testimony is also true.

在本次仲裁中,在电子邮件泄漏较少的前提下,很难突破从证人那里获得证据的难度。 CAS仲裁小组认为,曼彻斯特市聘请的咨询公司提供的报告并不令人信服。如果遵循此标准,则证人的证词也是真实的。

The CAS arbitration team even believes that the content of the email can only indicate the existence of such an arrangement but cannot determine whether it is actually implemented. It can be said that although Manchester City was once in a disadvantaged position that “leaked emails can be used as evidence”, they cleverly combined the email with other Fragmentation of the evidence makes it lose its relevance.

CAS仲裁团队甚至认为,电子邮件的内容只能表明这种安排的存在,而无法确定该安排是否真正实施。可以说,尽管曼彻斯特市曾经处于劣势地位,“泄漏的电子邮件可以用作证据”,但他们巧妙地将电子邮件与其他碎片证据结合在一起,使其失去了相关性。

Therefore, even if judging from the content of the leaked emails, the public generally believes that Manchester City has covered up capital injections, but from the perspective of the trial, it seems that only by further digging the content of other emails can it be truly in the framework of the Sports Arbitration Code and FFP The next attacked them on the issue of whether Manchester City violated the rules.

因此,即使从泄漏的电子邮件的内容来看,公众也普遍认为曼彻斯特市已经掩盖了注资,但是从审判的角度来看,似乎只有进一步挖掘其他电子邮件的内容才能真正做到。在体育仲裁法和FFP框架下,下一个在曼彻斯特城是否违反规则的问题上对他们发起了攻击。

However, as mentioned above, in order to avoid further impact on the Champions League, UEFA did not pursue further investigations from the perspective of new evidence. In an ideal state, UEFA could not compromise, but they are now facing more than just Manchester City's problems.

但是,如上所述,为了避免对欧洲冠军联赛造成进一步影响,欧洲足联没有从新证据的角度进行进一步调查。在理想状态下,欧足联无法妥协,但他们现在所面临的不仅仅是曼彻斯特城的问题。

Soon after the verdict was announced, Der Spiegel once again issued an article to refute a series of statements and testimonies that Manchester City was free from suspicion in the verdict, and showed the contents of the emails that were not published in the trial and previous reports.

判决宣布后不久,斯皮格尔(Der Spiegel)再次发表文章,驳斥一系列声明和证词,表示曼彻斯特市无需怀疑,并显示未在审判和先前报告中发表的电子邮件内容。

For this part of the content, if you want to know, I can make another article to analyze it according to the situation. However, the dispute between Manchester City and UEFA over previous violations may come to an end here.

对于内容的这一部分,如果您想知道,我可以写另一篇文章根据情况进行分析。但是,曼彻斯特城与欧洲足联之间关于先前违规的纠纷可能在这里结束。

 
 
公司地址:江苏省南京市栖霞区八卦洲工业园276号
招商热线:025-85317723 / 025-85317724

咨询该项目有机会获得
考察项目
食宿三星级酒店
价值不菲
创业大礼包
创业全程
专业1对1指导

温馨提示:
请填写真实信息,我们会把有价值的经营管理理念传递给您 ,让您早日实现创业梦想!创业有风险,投资需谨慎。

在线申请

姓名
电话
类型
所在城市
留言
IP:
路径:
时间:

加盟热线:
025-85317723
025-85317724

欧宝体育app|欧宝体育官方入口

总部地址:江苏省南京市栖霞区八卦洲欧宝体育app工业园
服务热线:025-85317723 85317724

投资有风险,选择需谨慎

欧宝体育app,欧宝体育官方入口版权所有    浙ICP备15015430号-1      网站地图