UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[I'm no cynic but...]

It's always the matter of timing that bothers me when these matters are made public. Rat smelling becomes overbearing.

 

[kaz7]

Do you feel discredited ?

I still feel elated, don't give a f**k what other football fans feel. Back to back CHAMPIONS 2019.

I didn't mean us fans! i am like a pig in shit,i mean discredits it because we cheated our way to it or so they say,it will be in the record books whatever they say

 

[cleavers]

i mean discredits it because we cheated our way to it or so they say

The only cheats I saw finished 2nd.

 

[kaz7]

The only cheats I saw finished 2nd.

Now that we agree on

 

[The First Earl]

PSG didn't get away.

I'll explain it again.

PSG like City tried to inject some money into their club. However, Qatar was really straightforward when they just decided to put the QTA sponsorship with PSG : 200 M€ for nation branding. It was a new kind of sponsorship, never seen before. UEFA decided to value it at 100 M€ for their calculations.

PSG operates with that budget in mind and buys Neymar and Mbappé.

Then, immediately, UEFA launches an investigation (after the cries of Tebas, Barca, Real, Bayern, Juve, etc.) and decides that the different Qatari contracts are not fair value anymore (because they realized that with those values PSG could buy these types of players from the cartel) and devalue retroactively. Then PSG, instead of being in the green, has a big deficit over the 2015/2016/2017 FFP 3 year calculations.
PSG has 15 days to sell urgently (and at lesser cost) bench players. They managed to do so.
UEFA decides then that those fair values are not fair enough and need more devaluation and PSG win their appeal in CAS thanks to a technicality.

However, the period with Neymar/Mbappé will start to be included in FFP calculation from now. As a consequence, PSG will have to sell again this summer (before 30/07) and will buy afterwards. This is what clubs tight with FFP always do (sell before the end of the financial year and buy just after).
The good thing for PSG (that shows FFP is a joke as well) is that thanks to the investment in Mbappé and Neymar, they got a bigger profile worldwide, despite the mixed results in Champion Leagues. As a matter of fact, they got the Jordan brand deal (15 M+€), ALL main sponsor kit (60/75 M€), new Nike deal (75 M+€), Renault (4/5 M€), recently MHSC (1/2 M€), Unibet. And they are expecting more TV rights the year after when Media Pro money will come in ( starting in 2020/2021). Those deals should cover for the loss of QTA money and make those deals affordable for PSG. Nasser also said they are considering the naming of the Parc des Princes if an offer at an exceptional value was on the table (Accor has asked to be notified if PSG offers those naming right and the Paris municipality only allow a suffixe name like Accor Parc des Princes). PSG is also the club that gets the more money per seat in Europe (thanks to the high end lounges prices). The stadium capacity is a problem though.

All those sponsoring deals wouldn't have been possible without the initial investment (or financial doping) of the owners. So, how exactly is FFP "fair" when it doesn't allow clubs to be able to draw in those sponsoring and marketing deals ? PSG has become one of the best shirt sellers with more than 1 M this year.

I do like your input. Thanks.

 

[BlueAnorak]

So it refers to His Excellency Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak. This is the only option

It does indeed. Simon Pearce would NEVER use an incorrect address for a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family.
From the various snipets of information in the published hacked emails and the Etihad deposition in the US I'm fairly sure that His Highness was acting as guarantor for the Etihad Sponsorship if Etihad had financial problems as a result of problems with US regulators. It certainly wasn't being paid by Sheikh Mansour. This is purely down to Etihad internal governance as His Excellency owns Etihad. It does not in any way breach FFP Related Party issues.

 

[jrb]

Here’s one for you.

What’s worse, City sacking Mancini on FA Cup Final Day, or the NYT and UEFA attacking City on FA Cup Final Week?

If there’s one thing I will never forgive our owner and the club for, it was sacking Mancini on that Day.

 

[hello]

PSG didn't get away.

I'll explain it again.

PSG like City tried to inject some money into their club. However, Qatar was really straightforward when they just decided to put the QTA sponsorship with PSG : 200 M€ for nation branding. It was a new kind of sponsorship, never seen before. UEFA decided to value it at 100 M€ for their calculations.

PSG operates with that budget in mind and buys Neymar and Mbappé.

Then, immediately, UEFA launches an investigation (after the cries of Tebas, Barca, Real, Bayern, Juve, etc.) and decides that the different Qatari contracts are not fair value anymore (because they realized that with those values PSG could buy these types of players from the cartel) and devalue retroactively. Then PSG, instead of being in the green, has a big deficit over the 2015/2016/2017 FFP 3 year calculations.
PSG has 15 days to sell urgently (and at lesser cost) bench players. They managed to do so.
UEFA decides then that those fair values are not fair enough and need more devaluation and PSG win their appeal in CAS thanks to a technicality.

However, the period with Neymar/Mbappé will start to be included in FFP calculation from now. As a consequence, PSG will have to sell again this summer (before 30/07) and will buy afterwards. This is what clubs tight with FFP always do (sell before the end of the financial year and buy just after).
The good thing for PSG (that shows FFP is a joke as well) is that thanks to the investment in Mbappé and Neymar, they got a bigger profile worldwide, despite the mixed results in Champion Leagues. As a matter of fact, they got the Jordan brand deal (15 M+€), ALL main sponsor kit (60/75 M€), new Nike deal (75 M+€), Renault (4/5 M€), recently MHSC (1/2 M€), Unibet. And they are expecting more TV rights the year after when Media Pro money will come in ( starting in 2020/2021). Those deals should cover for the loss of QTA money and make those deals affordable for PSG. Nasser also said they are considering the naming of the Parc des Princes if an offer at an exceptional value was on the table (Accor has asked to be notified if PSG offers those naming right and the Paris municipality only allow a prefixe name like Accor Parc des Princes). PSG is also the club that gets the more money per seat in Europe (thanks to the high end lounges prices). The stadium capacity is a problem though.

All those sponsoring deals wouldn't have been possible without the initial investment (or financial doping) of the owners. So, how exactly is FFP "fair" when it doesn't allow clubs to be able to draw in those sponsoring and marketing deals ? PSG has become one of the best shirt sellers with more than 1 M this year.

The Jordan shirt branding deal was master stroke tbf, made you unique, got you away from the shit nike kits and with the big name shirt personalisation's must have made psg an absolute killing.

 

[Barcon]

Here’s one for you.

What worse, City sacking Mancini on FA Cup Final Day, or the NYT and UEFA attacking City on FA Cup Final Week?

If there’s one thing I will never forgive our owner and the club for, it was sacking Mancini on that Day.

That never happened.

 

[Metalartin]

I was under the impression the assumption made by Der Speigel was that it said HH was referring to Sheikh Mansour, which was incorrect because it would most likely be the crown prince(H.H Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan) that would "secure funds", or whatever phrase they used that got them so excited.

Khaldoon has to be a related party as our chairman but he can't be securing the funds from his own accounts. Also if his excellency can only be him, these investigators will look very amateurish if this ever goes to court, for not knowing that.

 

[Gordyola]

thank-you, i did not know that.
so what was his "quality" for being Knighted?

In fairness to him he put lots back into the community

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I just don’t like the word doping. Who ever came with that word in this context needs some tight slapping. When others do they gloss with everything under the sun and glitters but when we follow the same exact path paved by so called elites , it’s called doping . This is where it all stems from , pure jealousy.

Wenger was the first I heard mention financial doping, they were still happy to take our money though.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

So if the CFCB IC has acted to avoid timing out I would liken this to the police undertaking a serious crime investigation and not having enough evidence to charge somebody but charging them anyway in the hope of getting enough evidence before it goes to court.

From what I have read UEFA have more questions to put to City but haven’t yet asked them following receipt of the 100 page submission so it is clear in my mind at least that the investigation is therefore incomplete.

If we get a ban (or do not get exonerated) I think City should a) appeal through CAS (a given) and b) instigate proceedings through a European court to fundamentally challenge the legality of FFP once and for all.

 

[Bluemeanster]

Any Legal Bods here? If the UEFA "Statute of limitations" is five years in City's case surely the "cause of action" was from when the original case was investigated not when UEFA handed out its findings andpunishment first time round 16th 2014. Therefore has the statute of limitations expired in a court of law and therefore no case to answer??

Also if City are banned for a year could they claim damages from der speigel as the source of the hacked emails ?

 

[BlueAnorak]

Most importantly in this affair, the "whistleblower" is nothing of the sort. He is a thief and an extortionist who blackmailed clubs in Portugal to prevent publication of hacked emails. As such there is absolutely no guarantee that the publisted emails have not been modified in some way. Probably not but there is no guarantee.

 

[cleavers]

So if the CFCB IC has acted to avoid timing out I would liken this to the police undertaking a serious crime investigation and not having enough evidence to charge somebody but charging them anyway in the hope of getting enough evidence before it goes to court.

The police wouldn't do that, they'd refer it to the CPS, to see if they could charge, they'd have to have pretty good evidence for the CPS to say "charge".

 

[BlueAnorak]

Any Legal Bods here? If the UEFA "Statute of limitations" is five years in City's case surely the "cause of action" was from when the original case was investigated not when UEFA handed out its findings andpunishment first time round 16th 2014. Therefore has the statute of limitations expired in a court of law and therefore no case to answer??

Also if City are banned for a year could they claim damages from der speigel as the source of the hacked emails ?

It would have expired at midnight tonight - hence the action today.

 

[Chris in London]

As big a twat as Roan is.
Interesting point on the 5 years to the day of our original FFP fine when UEFA have a 5 year statute period. Have they literally just put in a referral because today was the last day they could

Yes

 

[better dead than red]

I know it's off topic but I love that. Omar is my favourite TV character ever, I'm definitely nicking that. Sorry everyone as you were..

https://crimereads.com/omar-comin-the-wires-creators-and-stars-remember-the-birth-of-an-icon/

 

[Marvin]

This has probably already been mentioned but UEFA are clearly briefing journalists about the nature of their case against City.

First there was the NYT, now the BBC.

If you read the Dan Roan report, he's appears to have a source close to the investigation.

For example,

"And it is thought that Uefa's investigators feel more confident that they have a solid argument this time.

That may be because this case is unusual in that City stand accused of misleading Uefa's investigators, rather than simply a conventional FFP breach of inflating the value of a sponsorship deal and failing to break even.

It has been noted by some at Uefa that City are insisting they have provided evidence that proves that the "accusation of financial irregularities remains entirely false", but in their statements they do not refer to the more pertinent allegation that they may have misled investigators."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885

I don't quite understand the distinction between financial irregularities and misleading investigators. If City's documentation proves the sponsorship agreements are valid, and sourced from Company funds, then how have we misled investigators? I don't understand what they mean by misleading investigators. Do they mean misleading them as to the source of the money? I am very confident that Etihad Airways will be able to corroborate their sponsorship and that does not leave much else of significant value so what is UEFA's case.

Dan Roan leaves it as misleading investigators, but what does that mean. It's supposedly pertinent but it's not obvious to me what their concern is.

I am tempted to think that City have actually been able to refute their main allegation of inflated sponsorships, so they have in UEFA style, changed tack again.