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

[oakiecokie]

Let it go, Mancini had lost the plot at that time, BUT it's water under the bridge.

Not for Wayne its still not. ;)

 

[Gordyola]

He was not sacked that day though.

IIRC Barca let the cat out of the bag in that City were chasing Pellegrini to replace Mancini who they intended to sack after the season was over, I think they were being mischievous for something we had done or they fancied Pellegrini. I doubt anyone would be so stupid to sack a manager on FAC final day and if fact he was sacked until the Monday afterwards

 

[BlueAnorak]

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

It would appear we were made aware of it due to Etihad Airways problems with the US airline regulation at around the same time as the email but we were told not to worry as HH would fund the obligation. It is all about due diligence that UEFA have got totally the wrong end of the stick about.
There are other emails that dont have a simple explanation though.

 

[hammocity]

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.

I saw your previous post about their sponsorship now being 50m, I had read it had been diluted to 100m. It’s historically financial misdemeanours we are taking about and as others have said UEFA fucked up over PSG which is either incredibly stupid or was intentional. I’m not really that bothered what happens to any other Club, I think it’s quite obvious within Uefa there is a vendetta against us, it’s no coincidence FFP was brought in when we started to upset the old cartel and the big 4 in the English League. Gill “leaving” the Rags to join them was no coincidence. FFP 2 is supposed to be coming but quelle surprise it won’t be here for this transfer window where the Rags, Real and Barca will be spending huge amounts of wonga.

 

[Marvin]

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

I think we are all trying to second guess where this is going. I am biased but the Etihad deal looks to be exactly what it said on the tin.

It was reported way back shortly before the 1st FFP review as being worth about £400m over 10 years by the press. It is absolutely inconceivable that City would agree to a deal worth only £8m pa when we had FFP on the horizon. How exactly a troubled airline effect the payment is of no concern to UEFA. They might think so, but I don't think a Court would think so.

 

[inbetween]

I hope I'm totally wrong with this

But could the misleading investigators part, be that some of the money for the Etihad deal may well have come from the Emir (HH) and even though this is nothing to do with SM, Uefa feel that this was not disclosed originally and so by definition on Uefa's part City have misled them

I'm just putting this out there as we know Uefa like to move the goal posts

Potentially yes because there are two issues, inflating sponsorship deals and how those deals are funded.

The misleading part is that city will not disclose how sponsorship deals are funded because we are not in charge of those companies. The City-Etihad deal is funded by Etihad. How Etihad funds that deal is entirely a confidential commercial matter for Etihad outside of UEFA jurisdiction.

UEFA operates a policy however where clubs must prove innocence and not UEFA must prove guilt. If they think something dodgy is going on then unfortunately we are forced to prove there isn't.

In this instance I think UEFA believe that we are guilty of involving related parties in sponsorships because of the recent leaks however our accounts and submissions show nothing of the sort hence why they think we are misleading them.

They are seeing the possible existence of dodginess, expecting dodginess and then calling us guilty because the dodginess does not appear in the evidence.

By their rules they may well have grounds to expel us (assumed guilt) but certainly on the back of recent events city will have a watertight libel case to hit back with.

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Spot on Sam. Comments like that are what we hear from opposition fans about City and we're quick to get infuriated and point out that they know fuck all about what they're talking about, so to level the same accusations at PSG when - like those clueless oppo fans who lob unfounded accusations about us - we don't have the inside track on PSG's finances is a bit rich. You only have to read what our resident PSG fan @Parisian has posted on here to realise that there's every bit as much a witch hunt against them as there is against City.

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

Interestingly one of the emails identified that UEFA investigators were running spreadsheet sums assuming the Etihad deal was from a Related Party (even though it wasn't) and fair value! So even though it wasn't subsequently identified as a related party by UEFA they originally treated it as Related Party yet being of fair value!

 

[laserblue]

I never knew about this...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...xpected-to-escape-fine-for-breaching-FFP.html

Liverpool claimed they were spending £50 million on the Stanley Park project but didn't. They also failed FFP in 2013 and only escaped punishment because they failed to qualify for Europe.

If any bitter know nowt dippers call City cheats throw that right back in their faces.

 

[Marvin]

Potentially yes because there are two issues, inflating sponsorship deals and how those deals are funded.

The misleading part is that city will not disclose how sponsorship deals are funded because we are not in charge of those companies. The City-Etihad deal is funded by Etihad. How Etihad funds that deal is entirely a confidential commercial matter for Etihad outside of UEFA jurisdiction.

UEFA operates a policy however where clubs must prove innocence and not UEFA must prove guilt. If they think something dodgy is going on then unfortunately we are forced to prove there isn't.

In this instance I think UEFA believe that we are guilty of involving related parties in sponsorships because of the recent leaks however our accounts and submissions show nothing of the sort hence why they think we are misleading them.

They are seeing the possible existence of dodginess, expecting dodginess and then calling us guilty because the dodginess does not appear in the evidence.

By their rules they may well have grounds to expel us (assumed guilt) but certainly on the back of recent events city will have a watertight libel case to hit back with.

According to BBC's Dan Roan "City are also puzzled that Leterme seems to have told the adjudicatory chamber that the club has further questions to answer but City have not been told what." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885

So if Dan Roan is right, I would describe this as a, 'A leaked review, and an incomplete review'. Flawed.

 

[nmc]

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.

Everyone makes mistakes. Three or four legal eagles don’t miss something as simple and obvious as that. I suspect they did it on purpose to give themselves an easy way out - lose on a technicality rather than have your stupid rules torn up.

 

[cheddar404]

This is far more entertaining than their shite competition.

 

[nmc]

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

All a bit meaningless anyway. Etihad will source funds from a whole variety of sources - that’s outside UEFAs jurisdiction. The monies will have come to us directly from Etihad and will be a matter of public record in their accounts. That should be the end of the matter.

 

[M18CTID]

This is far more entertaining than their shite competition.

Ha ha!

Spurs game at ours was a belter to be fair - even if it was us who got knocked out

 

[M18CTID]

All a bit meaningless anyway. Etihad will source funds from a whole variety of sources - that’s outside UEFAs jurisdiction. The monies will have come to us directly from Etihad and will be a matter of public record in their accounts. That should be the end of the matter.

Said this all along, so I fail to see how anyone can do us for that. Of course, there could be something else we're unaware of but if it's purely down to where Etihad funded their sponsorship obligations from in 2015 then that's none of their fucking business. My own thinking on that is that they were in financial difficulties which is hardly a secret and the state bailed them out to meet some of their obligations, one of those being their sponsorship deal with City. Fuck all wrong with that, but the stupid twats will probably still try and punish us anyway.

 

[Parisian]

I saw your previous post about their sponsorship now being 50m, I had read it had been diluted to 100m. It’s historically financial misdemeanours we are taking about and as others have said UEFA fucked up over PSG which is either incredibly stupid or was intentional. I’m not really that bothered what happens to any other Club, I think it’s quite obvious within Uefa there is a vendetta against us, it’s no coincidence FFP was brought in when we started to upset the old cartel and the big 4 in the English League. Gill “leaving” the Rags to join them was no coincidence. FFP 2 is supposed to be coming but quelle surprise it won’t be here for this transfer window where the Rags, Real and Barca will be spending huge amounts of wonga.

Yup, it is around 50 M now (and considered to be so since 2015 with retroactive devaluation) as far as FFP is concerned. They tried to put it around 35 M€ afterwards.

The big problem with CAS is they ruled for us on technicality which means UEFA can still try their chance later on. Rumours have it that they asked us to terminate the contract once and for all.

And about the technicality, they did the same error for Fener, so it is not a preferential treatment for PSG.

As for Neymar and Mbappé, PSG is making headlines because of those two transfers but they are selling a lot (which is not highlighted). If you compare City and PSG spending balance, despite not engaging in big stars signings, City is far above PSG. However, i consider it as normal because you have PL money.

If you are angry about City treatment, just know that PSG has already experienced all those issues and even had to go to CAS. City has, so far, experienced nothing compared to PSG.
You just have to watch your own forum thread : https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/psg-set-to-fail-ffp-again.333948/

Press leaks/smear campaign about PSG (again Tariq Panja with the exclusive news) :
CFCB IC => CFCB AC => CAS

 

[Marvin]

All a bit meaningless anyway. Etihad will source funds from a whole variety of sources - that’s outside UEFAs jurisdiction. The monies will have come to us directly from Etihad and will be a matter of public record in their accounts. That should be the end of the matter.

If this transaction is secure, where does that leave UEFA's case given that Etihad relates to the lion share of the sponsorship? UEFA may not like the 'subterfuge' but if the end result, excluding Etihad which we think is OK, was of the order of approx £5m-10m additional revenue, is that worthy of a ban?

The NYT and BBC suggest 'misleading UEFA' is now their prime issue. Yet these sponsorships are about 1-2% of City's current revenue. A ban on top of recent sanctions? That's proportionate!

 

[Parisian]

They were accused of something similar, if not the same ... https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/24/uefa-reopens-financial-fair-play-investigation-psg


When UEFA reopened the investigation they should have done so in a 10 day period but took two months, so PSG's appeal against it being re-opened was upheld by CAS.

I have to ask myself, are UEFA that stupid to try something that broke their own rules so blatantly? Remarkable, if so. Doesn't seem right that these very experienced legal people on the UEFA panels didn't check this.

Having inflated deals is not a problem if you can satisfy the break even rule after UEFA put them at a fair market value. PSG sold players to balance their account, which means no wrongdoing was found. This is the final verdict that stood in their case.

Manchester City has, so far, no problem with the break even rule. Thus, i don't see what is similar here.

The whole case of PSG could be read, instead of PSG cheating UEFA again with inflated deals, as UEFA fails again to put a definite "fair market value" on PSG contracts.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

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.

So is operating a cartel to fix finances.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The relationship with Etihad has been a tremendous success, although perhaps the time is coming (with their own financial issues) that City may seek a new separate shirt sponsor?

Not sure if that is too much of a pride thing though? Etihad could still sponsor the stadium and campus, in addition to our training gear, which is easily worth £40m per annum.

However, a new shirt sponsor, in light of our elevated status in recent years, must surely be worth the thick end of £60-£70m a year?

I'm sure this is where the next influx of commercial cash is coming from and that China will have a big part to play?