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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is sounding like it's heading to a full-on shit hitting the fan for a lot of people/teams & we'll be just a minor bit on the side.

Tbh he wrote this about a year ago
Hence why Mourinho's utd was treated differently to Ole's by refs etc
Also pgmol seem to be working for a group of agents with links to owners of clubs who also own bookies
 
This is an ancient tweet from a conspiracy theorist nutter

Who according to a well know poster has worked for City in the past obtaining information about refs manipulation of games ending in the removal of 3 refs from the UK listing back in 2011/12 if I remember right
 
Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:

But even if ADUG did provide the funds, and UEFA could prove that conclusively, they're still allowed to do that as long as it represents market value, and that's completely subjective.

I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...
 
Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:



I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...
a related party is allowed to sponsor us, but that sponsorship falls liable to a 'fair value' test. As the amount of the sponsorship was deemed fair value, then it doesn't matter who paid it?
 
Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:



I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...
Sorry. I wasn't quite clear enough before.

Owners are allowed to inject money into clubs via sponsorships from what are deemed to be 'related parties' (companies they're connected to) but those sponsorships have to be what UEFA regard as market value. That is what they consider an unconnected party would pay. Any excess over market value isn't allowed to be declared as revenue for FFP purposes. We can keep the money but have to knock it off our declared revenue when we submit our FFP calculations.

So if Etihad give us £65m a year for the shirt, stadium and campus naming rights that's probably market value when compared to similar deals at equivalent clubs. If they gave us £150m a year, that probably wouldn't be However we have denied that Etihad is a related party, which I believe UEFA accepted. Therefore they could give us £150m and we could use the full amount under FFP. The problem is that the owner can't inject undeclared funds through a unrelated party.

The question is whether ADUG did themselves provide the additional funding to Etihad, to enable them to meet their commitment and, if so, whether UEFA could prove that. If ADUG were stupid enough to send a separate payment direct to City then they'd be bang to rights but I doubt that would have happened. If ADUG were providing the funds then they would have given them to Etihad first. But the other question is whether ADUG did provide the funds or arrange for someone else to do so. My understanding is that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council themselves provided the Etihad sponsorship money. They admitted this a few years ago as part of a submission when they were fighting an 'Open Skies' complaint from the US over state support for airlines in the Gulf.

Sheikh Mansour doesn't sit on the ADEC but Khaldoon does so there's a link and a possible reason to declare that the ADEC is a related party. But then we're still in the clear as long as the sponsorship is considered to be market value. For me, the easiest way out of this is to accept that Etihad is a related party. Then UEFA have nothing on us.
 
This is a very interesting development today.

It has emerged during the Ronaldo rape allegations case that Nevada State prosecutors, following investigation into 100 pages and emails, dropped the case because detectives could not be sure the documents published by Football Leaks were not altered.

Ronaldo is represented by Jorge Mendes' Gesfute agency.
The whole sordid affair is an attempt to discredit Gestifute, arranged and paid for by the criminal element of the four ‘super’ agencies created in England. These same agents are linked to the betting scams by PGMOL and players of the agents. The ‘war’ is deeper than many realise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.