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

[Bluemeanster]

The consenus of opinion is that Rick Parry has been the source of the UEFA leaks to the press in New York.
However Petros Mavroidis (Greece) has an office in New York and is listed by Uefa as serving in the Investigatory Chamber . He is a Greek national,and was recently quoted in the telegraph as telling CNN, that no final decision had been made in regard to City. Could this guy be UEFA's weak link and not Parry ???

 

[Machiavelli]

The consenus of opinion is that Rick Parry has been the source of the UEFA leaks to the press in New York.
However Petros Mavroidis (Greece) has an office in New York and is listed by Uefa as serving in the Investigatory Chamber . He is a Greek national,and was recently quoted in the telegraph as telling CNN, that no final decision had been made in regard to City. Could this guy be UEFA's weak link and not Parry ???

I hope he chokes on his next stifado.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I hope he chokes on his next stifado.

Kenny Everett likes this post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thinking about it this Petros Mavroidis geezer could well be in the hallouminati.

 

[Parisian]

Is that correct or is it another example of a journo making what he wants to out of it?

The language changed from most journos from "inflated sponsorship" to a charge of misleading UEFA(by not disclosing related income) just before UEFAs leaks started.

The two are not the same. Firstly I thought it was common knowledge City passed the fair market value test on what they were getting years ago... it's not as if they could bung extra income on the balance sheet, there wouldn't need to be an investigation to see that I'd have thought. Secondly Etihad are not a related party to begin with, that's where I thought the misleading charge comes in, if a related party has been paying Etihad(which City say is not the case) then that would break the rules but it's not "inflating the value" the amount that was paid is not the issue but where it came from.

Does anyone know how the fair market value is calculated? Does it have anything to do with what they think a sponsor can afford or is it all to do with what City are worth in the market?

By following PSG case, they don't even know how to calculate fair market value in a reliable way.

What they did is they asked an auditing company to review the sponsorship and assess a value. PSG had the right to pick another auditing company from the ones validated by UEFA to assess the value.

The company paid by UEFA to sanction us said it is worth 30 M. The company paid by PSG not to be sanctioned said it is worth 70 M. Both with their very reliable tools and standards procedures. After deliberation, they decided to pick the 50 M€ value with a split result of 4 versus 3.

Their fair value market is bullshit. Look, just recently, Audi which is a stakeholder of Bayern Munich will pay 1 billion € over 12 years ( 60 M€ + bonus per year). But Audi is not considered as a related party. Does it mean that City and PSG can justify a contract around that value (or a bit lower) for the same kind of prestation ?

Usually, they say that fair value market is what City would get if the sponsor was not related. Example, you show that Air France would be happy to pay 80 M€ to take the succession of Etihad and it could justify the latter to pay the same sum.

 

[Machiavelli]

By following PSG case, they don't even know how to calculate fair market value in a reliable way.

What they did is they asked an auditing company to review the sponsorship and assess a value. PSG had the right to pick another auditing company from the ones validated by UEFA to assess the value.

The company paid by UEFA to sanction us said it is worth 30 M. The company paid by PSG not to be sanctioned said it is worth 70 M. Both with their very reliable tools and standards procedures. After deliberation, they decided to pick the 50 M€ value with a split result of 4 versus 3.

Their fair value market is bullshit. Look, just recently, Audi which is a stakeholder of Bayern Munich will pay 1 billion € over 12 years ( 60 M€ + bonus per year). But Audi is not considered as a related party. Does it mean that City and PSG can justify a contract around that value (or a bit lower) for the same kind of prestation ?

Usually, they say that fair value market is what City would get if the sponsor was not related. Example, you show that Air France would be happy to pay 80 M€ to take the succession of Etihad and it could justify the latter to pay the same sum.

Nein.

 

[dublinblue12]

Might report them to GDPR or whatever it is, being trying to unscribe from their poxy emailing list days now and it's impossible

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Hope this isn’t some form of rope-a-dope. Seems too good to be true.

 

[bobmcfc]

Perhaps because we trust City to employ professional, top quality lawyers and the club are acting on that advice. If we were a smaller tinpot club like the rags I would not be so confident but our owners mean business so I will be confident until proven otherwise

Yes but Uefa have a big old hard on for city and won’t give up easily. It’s not wrong to feel pessimistic about the whole situation and just like last time, they keep finding new ways and new rules to fuck us over

 

[Parisian]

Nein.

http://www.culturepsg.com/news/club...a-dans-l-etude-commandee-par-l-uefa-l-e/20832

If the PSG has denied the information published by the business daily, the newspaper L'Equipe confirms the information about the study of Octagon on these famous contracts considered as related parties, QTA, QNB or Ooredoo being directed companies by the Qatari state, like the PSG (via the QSI investment fund). According to this study, PSG's biggest sponsorship deal, the one linking it to Qatar Tourism Authoriy (QTA), is largely overvalued. It would thus pass from 100M € to less than 50M in the report of Octagon and, "according to some sources, Octagon would have even encrypted only between 20 and 30M €" says L'Equipe.

For its part, the PSG is based on a study by Nielsen, a company specializing in the field which, like Octagon, is recognized by UEFA, and the conclusions are opposed. For Nielsen, the amount of contracts is quite correct given the media and economic reports. The Paris club is also plunged into misunderstanding because the contract with QTA had been validated by UEFA up to € 100M in 2014 in a written agreement signed between the two parties. However, this amount has not changed since the PSG has largely diversified and increased its income since that time.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes but Uefa have a big old hard on for city and won’t give up easily. It’s not wrong to feel pessimistic about the whole situation and just like last time, they keep finding new ways and new rules to fuck us over

 

[Metalartin]

Usually, they say that fair value market is what City would get if the sponsor was not related. Example, you show that Air France would be happy to pay 80 M€ to take the succession of Etihad and it could justify the latter to pay the same sum.

That was my understanding too, I was just hoping some of the financial experts could say for certain.

The thing is, it feels very much like the longer this goes on, with it seemingly being deliberately dragged out in the media(UEFA leaking things themselves), the more likely our existing fair market value will change(decrease). I'm sure City's legal team will be aware of that.

 

[hammocity]

No, says the person with knowledge of the situation. I’m no more a Qatari apologist than you or I are UAE apologists.

You’re just coming across as a know nothing cretin. You sound, towards Qatar and PSG, like Scousers and United fans do towards City and the UAE.

One would think that City fans, if anyone, would understand media bias and innuendo and not invent idiotic theories.

Cretin eh, ok if I call you a supercilious twat then? I merely stated facts about PSG and their Chairman but all you do is defend Qatar when clearly there more questions to answer. You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you but you are defensive in the extreme by not acknowledging corruption levied towards the Qatari ownership in acquiring sports rights. The World Cup going to Qatar is an absolute fucking joke and you know it, there is no reason historically or for the growth of the game game, the climate or the social and economic good of the game that it’s gone there, corruption at the highest level.

I’m open to being proved wrong, no shame in that, however I won’t be changing my opinion just yet to align myself with a bunch of sycophants.

An old saying “if you can’t be yourself you make a terrible someone else”

 

[citytilllidie]

Chairman and Chief Investigator
Yves Leterme (Belgium)

Members
Jacobo Beltrán (Spain)
Egon Franck (Germany)
Petros Mavroidis (Greece)
Damien Neven (Belgium)
Richard Parry (England) Former Liverpool CEO and Lifelong Liverpool fan
Konstantin Sonin (Russia)
Yves Wehrli (France)

Thankyou Bluemeanster. Fecking Parry eh?

 

[citytilllidie]

The consenus of opinion is that Rick Parry has been the source of the UEFA leaks to the press in New York.
However Petros Mavroidis (Greece) has an office in New York and is listed by Uefa as serving in the Investigatory Chamber . He is a Greek national,and was recently quoted in the telegraph as telling CNN, that no final decision had been made in regard to City. Could this guy be UEFA's weak link and not Parry ???

Yes.
Eat like pigs them Greek lads, always at the trough

 

[citytilllidie]

By following PSG case, they don't even know how to calculate fair market value in a reliable way.

What they did is they asked an auditing company to review the sponsorship and assess a value. PSG had the right to pick another auditing company from the ones validated by UEFA to assess the value.

The company paid by UEFA to sanction us said it is worth 30 M. The company paid by PSG not to be sanctioned said it is worth 70 M. Both with their very reliable tools and standards procedures. After deliberation, they decided to pick the 50 M€ value with a split result of 4 versus 3.

Their fair value market is bullshit. Look, just recently, Audi which is a stakeholder of Bayern Munich will pay 1 billion € over 12 years ( 60 M€ + bonus per year). But Audi is not considered as a related party. Does it mean that City and PSG can justify a contract around that value (or a bit lower) for the same kind of prestation ?

Usually, they say that fair value market is what City would get if the sponsor was not related. Example, you show that Air France would be happy to pay 80 M€ to take the succession of Etihad and it could justify the latter to pay the same sum.

You look at the names on that investigative committee, and it appears they are all high flying politico's, one from each nation, and you wouldn't think any of them will have any investigative skills to carry out the task set them.

Market value of an advertising contract?
They would only know their own UEFA one wouldn't they?
Heineken, Mastercard, Gazprom etc. multi multi millions of Euro's, and they would have to get that information from their own financial guy.

Would a single one of them have any kind of a clue of the worldwide marketing value someone like City might have to one of their sponsors?

I would also imagine it being quite difficult to arrange a meeting where all of those people would be available at the same time to go through City's documents, without at least one of them saying, 'Sorry, I have another meeting in London, so have a flight to catch', leaving an exasperated gang with a load of paperwork to go through.

It's just not reasonable or practical to expect that body of high fliers to have the time, patience or nous to tackle this investigation.

It does actually look like they will have had a brainstorming session to see how they can get some kind of a ban on City before that deadline expired, and without having to read any of those 100 pages of explanations.
It almost looks like they've decided that they can't think of anything so feck it, let's just send it upstairs with recommendations to ban them for a year.

So there has to be some underlings doing it and God knows who's in charge there.
You know what these scousers are like, they get where water can't.
Apparently, you're never more than 6 foot away from a scouser at any one time.
So, Parry it is. - The Rat

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Wonder if Uefa’s lips will be as loose during these legal proceedings as they were when trying to find us guilty.

 

[BosnianBlue]

I give the chances of City and UEFA being in cahoots at slightly less than a snowball in hell.

It's nice to believe we're in war with them and I partially hope so, but don't be naive to think it's not possible it's all a planned deal. Too much money is on the line there, background deals that minimize the bad things for both sides are very well possible. People are dying in thousands during the wars and leaders from the both sides are doing things in the background those that bleed down there don't have idea about.

UEFA is huge organization with loads of money and excellent lawyers. If we win this appeal, it's going to be a second time, after PSG, that they lose on procedural thing. They are ****s, but I don't think they are such amateurs.

Let's just hope this finishes well and by the wishes of our people who deal with it. Complete win would be matter of a pride, but whatever doesn't hurt us, I'm all for it.

 

[cheekybids]

It's nice to believe we're in war with them and I partially hope so, but don't be naive to think it's not possible it's all a planned deal. Too much money is on the line there, background deals that minimize the bad things for both sides are very well possible. People are dying in thousands during the wars and leaders from the both sides are doing things in the background those that bleed down there don't have idea about.

UEFA is huge organization with loads of money and excellent lawyers. If we win this appeal, it's going to be a second time, after PSG, that they lose on procedural thing. They are ****s, but I don't think they are such amateurs.

Let's just hope this finishes well and by the wishes of our people who deal with it. Complete win would be matter of a pride, but whatever doesn't hurts us, I'm all for it.

I’d like to see us win & the champs league abolished, got to be worth a star on the badge for that.

 

[KS55]

If the CAS uphold our appeal, UEFA are fucked as far as the investigation goes. It's now time-barred.

Obviously we can't know what will happen, Courts can be perverse, but, if we do win, the real story begins. Questions have to be answered about who was leaking, why they were leaking and what UEFA have done about it. And, lastly, what do UEFA intend to do about the reputational damage their ineptitude has done to our brand.

I suspect there will be a number of other alleged breaches of their CFCB rules which we can all guess at but that's speculation and, unless we see the pleadings, we won't know the details of.

I'd really hope that, if we win or lose, a published judgement will throw a little light on things.

I doubt it would be time barred. Uefa could legitimately argue that a re-hearing is just a continuation of a process started in time.