UEFA statement on Bursaspor case

[BrahimHemdani 1]

2012/13 UEFA Europa League following a decision taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 22 June 2012. The club had been suspended from European competition for one year and fined â?¬50,000 by the UEFA Appeals Body on 30 May 2012 for overdue payables for transfer activities dating back to 2007.

 

On 8 June 2012, Busaspor filed an appeal with CAS. Yesterday, the CAS ruling stipulated that Bursaspor be excluded from one UEFA club competition for which it qualifies in the next four years, but that this exclusion is suspended for a probationary period of three years. The club was also fined â?¬250,000.

 

UEFA has duly received and taken note of the decision taken by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with regards to this case and, as the ultimate chamber of sports justice, UEFA respects both the authority and the decisions taken by CAS. Nevertheless, it wishes also to express its disappointment and surprise at the decision.

 

While the grounds for this decision will be examined with great care by UEFA, once they are made available, UEFA reiterates that it will continue to enforce its rules on club licensing and financial fair play in a strict and fair manner, and with all necessary due diligence.

 

UEFA is of the firm opinion that it is imperative for clubs to pay their debts to other football clubs, and will remain vigilant to ensure that this happens in accordance with the rules laid down in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations. These basic principles of good conduct should be strongly supported, and not undermined, by any future rulings from CAS.

 

This ruling by CAS therefore in no way affects the implementation of UEFAâ??s financial fair play rules, which UEFA will continue to implement both equitably and universally.

 

UEFA underlines that the rules on club licensing and financial fair play have been supported by the entire European football community, and that compliance with the system is vital to safeguard the interests of clubs and players alike, as well as protecting the future sustainability of football in Europe.

 

Wonder if they owed the Turkish Taxman as well and if they paid us all the money for Miller?

[andy steel 0]

This ruling by CAS therefore in no way affects the implementation of UEFA’s financial fair play rules, which UEFA will continue to implement both equitably and universally.

 

You have to hand it to them, they have chutzpah. Only if 'in no way' means 'we will have to change the punishment' does that statement follow the CAS decision.

 

Eventually, someone will be forced to stand against UEFA and other football bodies (it would be overly generous to describe the SFA thusly) and their mediaeval refusal to recognise minor difficulties such as courts and law. Not going to be us the state we're in, but someone will have to do it.

[der Berliner 4,071]

Have we received any information from UEFA just yet? The ban we suffered was for non-delivery of the accounts to the SFA, AFAIK. That's the one-year ban. The three your rule is no ban as such and we may well argue in months to come that we have a special case with Whyte and all his wrongdoings, since it was behind the clubs back. While the newco has to be registered anew with the SFA, the club as such has been member far longer, I take it?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You have to hand it to them, they have chutzpah. Only if 'in no way' means 'we will have to change the punishment' does that statement follow the CAS decision.

 

Eventually, someone will be forced to stand against UEFA and other football bodies (it would be overly generous to describe the SFA thusly) and their mediaeval refusal to recognise minor difficulties such as courts and law. Not going to be us the state we're in, but someone will have to do it.

 

Didn't you know football is above the law.

 

chutzpah

Good word, I think that might be a first on Gersnet or any Rangers forum for that matter!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Have we received any information from UEFA just yet? The ban we suffered was for non-delivery of the accounts to the SFA, AFAIK. That's the one-year ban. The three your rule is no ban as such and we may well argue in months to come that we have a special case with Whyte and all his wrongdoings, since it was behind the clubs back. While the newco has to be registered anew with the SFA, the club as such has been member far longer, I take it?

 

It would be intersting to research that point in the case of Fiorentina.

 

As I have pointed out a couple of times in the past, UEFA consider AC and ACF Fiorentina as one and the same but it is not clear if the newco had to re-register. http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52817/profile/index.html etc

[the gunslinger 3,366]

we will have to pay our football debts eventually or suffer further. something else d&p got wrong or don't Care about.

[der Berliner 4,071]

Anyone checked what the case is somewhere else with regarding to football debts? While we could argue about those "honorary debts", that the oldco going out of business was again not the club's fault. It could well be that D&P can rake in some more money from Collier Bristow et al and pay the creditors a bit more, if that is possible under this non-CVA/newco version.