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

[kaz7]

Got a City tattoo on my upper arm that I've had since 1981. Might have my arm chopped off.

Oh shit i've one on the inside of my good arm,oh well how hard can life be with no arms lol

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

What if we get a ban in the summer snd we have let 2 briliant wingers go and nobody will sign for us unless we pay like rags? Bang goes 10yrs of wsge structure and it pised the others players off

All good points mate. Your new Ipad is still a twat though clearly

 

[VOOMER]

There's two issues I think. CAS will rule on UEFA's process but I very much doubt they'll rule on whether our accounts were all above board as we're claiming they are. So even if CAS clear us, there's still the battle to be fought against UEFA to clear our name. And that would be done in court I assume.

Court isnt where UEFA want this to go, they would make FIFA look like paragons of virtue.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was part of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Link here: http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Go to the link saying "major legal submission" and it'll open a PDF. On page 14 it says:

...while Etihad asserts that it funded the $640m cost of the sponsorship of Manchester City Football Club "from its own liquidity" it provides no such evidence and fails to address the contrary evidence that the US airlines submitted on this point: an internal study that Booz Allen prepared for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, which states the the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi - not Etihad - covers the cost.

So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.

 

[nmc]

I've been thinking about this scenario. What if UEFA have used (as we suspect and hope) a pile of rubbish, nonsense and untruths as the basis for this sanction. Also let's suppose that hypothetically, they have followed the correct procedure and process throughout, although they haven't from what we know. Surely it cannot be the case that because the process was followed but their evidence is incorrect that the sanction, or a slightly lesser one, is allowed to stand. At some point there must be a function where the validity of their evidence is looked at and interrogated.

The sanction must be a reasonable response to the evidence gathered - being water tight on process doesn’t give you carte Blanche (but it seems the application of due process is not a uefa strength). A big issue for uefa will be the lack of sanction for PSG in a similar case.

 

[nmc]

I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was aprt of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Link here: http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Go to the link saying "major legal submission" and it'll open a PDF. On page 14 it says:

So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.

Great detective work. Can you forward that to Khaldoon - he’s still going through his emails looking for that !

 

[HarrytheBlue]

It’s not key evidence but I do wish we’d start saying more about this sort of stuff as part of a PR campaign. “Sources close to the club” should be drip-feeding shit on UEFA on a concerted basis. And it should be good, hard factual stuff that hacks can verify themselves. We are the ones currently being discredited, not UEFA, and everyone is lapping it up.

We have to be careful about not harming our own position by going public with grubby truths about UEFA.

 

[homerdog]

So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.

Nice one - but no doubt, the BBC and other brainwashed media outlets will still assert that they are one and the same, which is enough for most of the brain dead morons who believe everything they read!

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

I've found a document that confirms the Etihad sponsorship was covered by the Executive Council, not ADUG. It was part of the Open Skies case brought by the US airlines against the Gulf ones (Etihad, Qatar & Emirates) and claimed that they were in receipt of huge government subsidies. As part of their defence Etihad had a presentation done for the Crown Prince, MBZ, by consultants Booz Allen.
Link here: http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Go to the link saying "major legal submission" and it'll open a PDF. On page 14 it says:

So there you have it. The Etihad sponsorship money, at least that money that wasn't paid from their own funds, came from the Executive Council, not ADUG.

good news ?

 

[sir baconface]

This is my take too. We open with "other clubs have done similar and not been banned"

Which other clubs have been charged with paying declared sponsorship monies themselves and hiding this with false accounting? Because that’s what I understand the main accusation to be.