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

[MillionMilesAway]

It's nothing to do with UEFA - that is an Etihad Airways issue as to where they get the sponsorship funds from. Of course UEFA may see it differently but they too are clearly bound by international account rules.

I tend to agree with you.

 

[Allnightlong]

Did someone say the entry to the e mails was through the passwords of some ex youth coaches who went to another club.

a club that had the best ever season but won sweet fa so far?

 

[BlueRain]

It's nothing to do with UEFA - that is an Etihad Airways issue.

It's not our concern where Etihad get their money from - but *if* the leaked emails show we DID KNOW that our owner was funding the sponsorship then that's the "misleading investigators" part... Now these leaked emails exist it's (I assume) UEFA's whole arguement which is shaky ground for them (again I presume) because are they even legit?

 

[Marvin]

I certainly don't expect it but if one of the 'big 4' were getting this shit from UEFA the FA, Prem & media would be releasing statements left right & centre in support after all this reflects badly on both the former organisations.

Press reports a few months ago suggested Liverpool have been petitioning other clubs asking the Premier League to investigate. I think I recall speculation that they had the support of about 12 other clubs.

It's my opinion that the whole FFP scheme from its inception has been devised by officials linked to major rival clubs. If you look at the people on the UEFA licencing committees and those who oversee the financial monitoring of European club football, many are linked to major European clubs, and we know that the clubs themselves had a major input into these regulations. This is not an independent review at all. FFP has been designed to entrap City. They changed the rules during the last review to snare City, and now the allegation is that City tried to evade the snare. How dare they?

UEFA seems to me rather a nebulous organisation with various groups with competing interests. The problem City have is that rival clubs have been devising their rules and then lobbying UEFA intensely. I think the media must know this, but so far they only seem to have been concentrating on the deer in the headlights.

 

[hammocity]

@Parisian is the expert on PSG - he may be able to flesh those out a bit. However, I don't think it's a surprise that the first big sanctions under FFP (at the same time as each other) were similar - testing what the clubs would accept.

As far as I know, PSG have not been accused of what City have, so there isn't anything to compare directly on that. Vice versa, the things you mention haven't been levelled at City, so there isn't anything to compare.

I agree with you but all the efforts are towards Punishing City, there’s not much shit flying in PSG’s direction.

 

[SilverFox2]

But even putting a uefa hat on, shit I need to wash my hair at the thought, how is it possible to get misled, you received a set of audited accounts, review those accounts and if necessary can seek clarification, if uefa now think they misinterpreted something that’s not being misled just incompetent.

If the misled angle is indeed the problem surely there is no need to point out how one manages to comply with uefa rules that are porous.
Income Tax rules need frequent tweaking because loopholes are legally used by many to avoid the need to declare income items.

Why should investment be special?

 

[SWP's back]

The day before, or on FA Cup Final Day, to sack the Manager, was absolute Madness.

As that never happened, maybe you should take your handwringing elsewhere, this topic has been done to death anyway.

 

[BlueAnorak]

It's not our concern where Etihad get their money from - but *if* the leaked emails show we DID KNOW that our owner was funding the sponsorship then that's the "misleading investigators" part... Now these leaked emails exist it's (I assume) UEFA's whole arguement which is shaky ground for them (again I presume) because are they even legit?

But the Etihad sponsorship funds were guaranteed by the Emir "His highness" (no following name) not "His Highness Sheikh Mansour" (note the name after His Highness). Abu Dhabi address protocol that Simon Pearce would never get wrong in a billion years.
City were clearly doing due diligence with Etihad as a result of problems with Etihad and the US regulator.

 

[SWP's back]

City alleged to have tried getting round owner investment rules - being investigated.
PSG - haven't been accused of this as far as I know.

Because they didn't try and get round it. They were "in you face" about their 200m per year sponsorship deal with the QTA. That was then downvalued to 100m then again down valued to 50m. Then UEFA still weren't happy and tried to open the investigation again, PSG immediately appealed to the CAS who told UEFA they couldn't reopen it.

 

[hammocity]

This morning Uefa has launched its first ever Women’s Football strategy. I wonder what’s coming next? :)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Because they didn't try and get round it. They were "in you face" about their 200m per year sponsorship deal with the QTA. That was then downvalued to 100m then again down valued to 50m. Then UEFA still weren't happy and tried to open the investigation again, PSG immediately appealed to the CAS who told UEFA they couldn't reopen it.

That's what I thought.

 

[BlueRain]

But the Etihad sponsorship funds were guaranteed by the Emir "His highness" (no following name) not "His Highness Sheikh Mansour" (note the name after His Highness). Abu Dhabi address protocol that Simon Pearce would never get wrong in a billion years.

Interesting - I didn't know that... so even if the emails are legit they don't actually name Sheikh Mansour or anyone connected with ADUG?

 

[Marvin]

How sure can anyone be that these leaked / hacked emails are legit? They could be completely made up or legit emails that have been edited to make them look like we knew something we didn't... That's the problem UEFA have - they are putting 100% trust in someone actually having hacked our email servers and not tampered with anything...

There was a story a few weeks ago that PSG's owners were thinking about "scaling back" their investment in PSG due to the bad publicity (and PSG being sh*t in the CL) and maybe (just maybe) UEFA and the cartel are trying to smear our owners (and PSG's) to get them to back off their investments?
It sounds a bit "foil hat" nuts I know, but mud like this sticks - even if we get found not guilty of anything there will be a lot of people who will just think brown envelope's have been passed under the table and there's no smoke without fire etc etc...

Going back to the emails - as someone else has already said... where are all the other "damning" emails regarding other clubs? Seem's a bit odd that the only "leaked" emails to have surfaced are about us?

It makes great reading in a Sunday newspaper, or magazine but the practicalities are that City are owned by Sheikh Mansour and advised and managed by people connected to the UAE state machine. They can arrange finance and have access to that state machine, but Etihad's deal was reportedly worth c. £60m pa and how they source that money should not be an issue. The alleged email trail that Der Spiegel were provided with suggested that £8m came from Etihad Airways and £57.5m from ADUG, however I think that money came from the UAE state which underwrites the financial obligations of the airline, and I am very confident that City will be able to show that. That will be 90% of the financial value of the UAE sponsorships.

An allegedly hacked email trail looks bad when you prepare and lay the context but you could also play it a totally different way if you wanted.

 

[KS55]

It's not our concern where Etihad get their money from - but *if* the leaked emails show we DID KNOW that our owner was funding the sponsorship then that's the "misleading investigators" part... Now these leaked emails exist it's (I assume) UEFA's whole arguement which is shaky ground for them (again I presume) because are they even legit?

It has been stated previously on this thread that
1. The Executive Council of Abu Dhabi paid Etihad a sum which would enable them to meet their sponsorship obligations. NOT Mansour, Mansour does not sit on the Council, but Khaldoon does.
2Etihad have previously stated that they met the whole obligation from own resources.(which, presumably, included state support above).

 

[SWP's back]

You only have to look at the Neymar and Mbappe deals and the hugely overvalued Qatar sponsorship deals to realise PSG are still flouting the laws.

This is simply as misinformed as when non City fans (with no clue) claim the same about City.

PSG need to sell now to break even and did the same last summer. Also, their sponsorship deals are indeed seen as 'related party' transactions and are tested against the "fair market value" calculation.

 

[squirtyflower]

Those in the adjudicatory chamber appear to be highly experienced lawyers. They were involved in the attempt to re-open the case because (and I quote) "The Adjudicatory Chamber ruled on 19 September 2018 that the case should be referred back to the Investigatory Chamber for further investigation." They had been given the task by the UEFA CFCB on June 13 so should have ruled by, I assume June 23 at the very latest.

If the legal professionals missed this, I'm astonished. None of them appear to have been changed as a result. Either they were extremely careless or allowed it to drag for some reason.

I suspect the latter

 

[Skip Donoghue]

Etihad is a state airline. I don't see what room there is for ambiguity.

I agree, but we are talking Uefa here and nothing should surprise us

If The Emir (HH) did tip up some of the money for the Etihad deal and we didn't disclose it, (why should we and why would we even be aware of it, that's Etihad business) as we know they will use any loophole to get us and there does seem to be a lot of enfficies on the word "misleading" in many of the reports you read

If City's stance of doing nothing wrong is correct (which we have no reason to doubt based on the statement) as far as accounting and a legal point as at the end of the day what we are hearing is the full amount came from Etihad whether some of it is via The Emir to Etihad then to City, from our point of view (accounting wise) it shouldn't matter

but it isn't a legal issue yet and we are bound by Uefas interpretations/rules and we know their panchaunt for altering things at the drop of a hat, if any of the above is right this can only go to CAS

I'm probably well off the mark with this and I'm trying to work out what Uefa think they have on us

 

[Newman Noggs]

This is simply as misinformed as when non City fans (with no clue) claim the same about City.

PSG need to sell now to break even and did the same last summer. Also, their sponsorship deals are indeed seen as 'related party' transactions and are tested against the "fair market value" calculation.

The thing is, all this talk about what PSG may or may not have done is simply a distraction (and a welcome one for UEFA) from the main point that FFP is inherently illegal in any other type of business.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Interesting - I didn't know that... so even if the emails are legit they don't actually name Sheikh Mansour or anyone connected with ADUG?

That particular email, yes. I worked in Abu Dhabi and if you address a Sheikh incorrectly you get bollocked.
Other emails do muddy the water a bit though.

 

[Marvin]

It's not our concern where Etihad get their money from - but *if* the leaked emails show we DID KNOW that our owner was funding the sponsorship then that's the "misleading investigators" part... Now these leaked emails exist it's (I assume) UEFA's whole arguement which is shaky ground for them (again I presume) because are they even legit?

Our owner is Sheikh Mansour. He and his advisers are part of the UAE state-machine. Its obvious that the UAE state covers Etihad's financial obligatons. The people who manage and advise MCFC on Sheikh Mansour's behalf have access to the state machinery and know the processes and what can be done. Quite how the financial obligations of a state airline are met, might make for intrigue, but it's not really relevant as to whether City misled anyone in my opinion. The Etihad Deal was widely reported as being worth about £40 to £60m pa in the press and it turned out according to Der Spiegel to be worth £67.5m at the time. I as a ordinary City fan, aware of Etihad's financial problems, would naturally assume that the sponsorship agreement would be fulfilled by the UAE state, and that looks to be what happened.

I am perhaps missing something but I am failing to see what the issue is with Etihad and that is 90% of the financial value of City's UAE sponsorship.

Probably a writer for the Times would totally disagree with me.