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

[hello]

UEFA are really questioning where a sponsor is getting their funds from to pay for sponsorship of a football club. Only, it isn't really any of their business and if they think it is, why are all other sponsors within the game not subjected to the same scrutiny?

Without descending the Harris levels of "whataboutery" Do UEFA care about the fact that one of its main line sponsors received billions of state funding to prop itself up and that the state that did so has clubs competing in UEFA competitions? No of course that's absolutely fine and there's no potential conflict of interest there. Er but actually weren't the FPP regulations changed to facilitate AC Milan's change of ownership and allow investment shortly after UEFA renewed its sponsorship agreement with Milan based Unicredit which had been propped up to the tune of 8.1bn euros by the Italian state. That's just pure coincidence I am sure.

Lots of sources are behind paywalls but a couple of open ones:

https://fr.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/administration/marketing/news/newsid=2253825.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...es-on-to-unicredit-s-13bn-cash-call-1.2934743

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

This is an interesting comment from the head of commercial activities of OctagonUK, one of the partner of UEFA and trusted audit firm used for fair value market assessment.

He wonders why Puma made this statement. If they weren't sure, it would have been best for them not to comment. So City must have given them solid proof of being cleared in an appeal.

This is 2014 Octagon valuation of City sponsorship :



Worth noting that the minimum value given to Etihad deal is 40 and maximum is 50. Even though it is lower than the actual deal, it is nowhere near close to the 8 M figure. This alone should tell the attacks on City aren't legit.

Just read his twitter thread on that - so UEFA are ultimately trying to suggest that the sponsorship deals were inflated and paid by our owner...an example being that Etihad were only paying £8m per year and the rest was from Mansour ?

I have just come out a meeting at work in which I nearly fell asleep in so reading his twitter feed I may be missing the point

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think Wenger’s first side would have failed ffp. He benefited from Fiszmann bankrolling him. He got the initial heavy investment he is now trying to deny anyone else, such a hypocrite.

And he never gets pulled up for it.

 

[Gordyola]

Sorry probably used the wrong chose of words. It will be based on an assessment of the merits of City's appeal.

CAS dont just automatically suspend a ban at the request of an individual or organisation. From my understanding (im not a lawyer or anything and like everyone on here we have just read a lot about it from previous cases etc) you have to have put forward a case that shows you have a chance of success at appeal. IF CAS do suspend the ban then it does indeed mean the case we put forward to them has a chance of success. Weather that means a reduction of ban/fine or acquittal remains to be seen

Sorry I disagree about it having a level of success CAS will not make any assumption of success

 

[Rolee]

I think the trail indicates the money originated from the EC but MAY have been routed through ADUG.
My point is that if this is the case then the routing through ADUG is not just a trivial post box issue.
The result being that we could be in breach of FFP.

Doesn't some of the Etihad sponsorship money go to New York and Melbourne? In which case putting the money into the holding company before being distributed to the 3 clubs would make sense?

 

[domalino]

1. Being deceitful isn't always 'a worse offence than the offence itself': it's in most jurisdictions (according to sentencing guidelines) far less serious than the original offence itself and results in much fewer prosecutions. Even in the UK, if I turned up at the Guardian's offices and slapped David Conn's bald head but then denied it, the only prosecution I'd face is one for the (common) assault.

2. More importantly, nowhere in the 'UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations' or 'the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body' does it say that:

• 'Breach of trust' is an offence
• 'Breach of trust' or a similar offence is more serious than any other offence

Once again, it looks like Conn's arrived at an opinion not just without facts but in the opposition of facts.

He really is a disgrace to journalism.

Actually, it’s not true at all.

Conn states that “clearly Sheikh Mansour is the source of the £57m”

What is he basing that on? The hacked emails.

First rule of financial litigation - follow the money. That’s what PB did and it turns out the £57m came from the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. Absolutely nothing to do with Sheikh Mansour.

Perhaps Conn should have given his old pal PB a call before he jumped in and made himself look silly again.

Conn has showed a very poor grasp of specifics and the correct terms when he's featured on the radio and podcasts about this. Like you said, inserting phrases like "breach of trust" like it's an actual charge when it has never been used by any party is not something you would do if you had a solid grounding of knowledge.

He's wafty, like a schoolboy who didn't do his homework and research his presentation, but has very strong opinions anyway.

 

[Len Rum]

We could not be in breach of FFP if the money originated from the EC, regardless of how it was routed. Even if wording in FFP suggested that was some sort of breach, any competent court or arbitration body would look at the substance of the transaction and find in City's favour.

Can't agree mate.
If it's routed through J.Bloggs clearing house for financial transactions Ltd. you might have a case.
But it wasn't it came through ADUG and that is our owner and that makes all the difference.
Anyhow hope I'm wrong.

 

[dario2739]

Can't agree mate.
If it's routed through J.Bloggs clearing house for financial transactions Ltd. you might have a case.
But it wasn't it came through ADUG and that is our owner and that makes all the difference.
Anyhow hope I'm wrong.

From what I read it wasn't through ADUG though

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Conn is so far down the rabbit hole that to come out and admit his main piece of evidence against us, the e-mail saying HH was a reference to shiekh mansour and not shiekh kalifa will make him look like a fool.

He has no turning back stratergy as he has staked his last 4-5 articles on this premise.

Now that the etihad funding is being clearly shown not to be from our shiekh he is twisting the narrative as otherwise he is shown to be a poorly reseached journalist.

It is both pathetic and moronic.

A poorly researched journalist?

Some are being far too kind. He has chosen to lift Prestwich Blue's information and present it as his own, ignoring the relevancy and facts to maintain his ongoing narrative.

He's not a journalist. He's a chiseler.

An absolute disgrace to the profession.

 

[domalino]

This is an interesting comment from the head of commercial activities of OctagonUK, one of the partner of UEFA and trusted audit firm used for fair value market assessment.

He wonders why Puma made this statement. If they weren't sure, it would have been best for them not to comment. So City must have given them solid proof of being cleared in an appeal.

This is 2014 Octagon valuation of City sponsorship :



Worth noting that the minimum value given to Etihad deal is 40 and maximum is 50. Even though it is lower than the actual deal, it is nowhere near close to the 8 M figure. This alone should tell the attacks on City aren't legit.

Also worth noting, this is a study done by the same company, Octagon, which valued PSG's QSA sponsorship as 7m/year, which Yves Leterme then disregarded and accepted it was worth 100m, PSG's value.

If UEFA's IC decided the related party sponsorships of Aabar and Etisalat were overvalued because they were paying 11 instead of 4 (2.75x) and 15 instead of 5 (3.00x) then why the fuck did they allow a sponsorship which was 14x larger as assessed by the same company.

 

[Kakhaber The Great]

Sigh, it's not a characterisation of our fanbase. He's saying we're the ones calling others 'subhuman scum'. The low levels of reading comprehension on here are worrisome.

I've owned my error. In my defence, I tend not to study Liew's output but merely 'skim'.

I shall henceforth endeavour to work on my reading comprehension just for you, Nails.

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

The damage is done, it cannot be undone by anything City does, but if the club agrees quietly to let it go if CAS comes down in our favour, then it's not continual trench war for UEFA.

Until the next time.....just like the last time

And so the circle goes round. This has to be final either way.

 

[kippaxwarrior]

And he never gets pulled up it.

Always makes me laugh when Wenger comes out and says stuff about us. He's hated us ever since the takeover but what he conveniently forgets is that if diamond dealer Danny Fiszman hadn't had pumped in over £50M of his own money into Arsenal in the mid 90's he would of never been able to sign players like Henry,Overmars,Pires(even Bergkamp was bought with that money before Wenger arrived) to help him compete with Utd.

Money HAS always talked in football

 

[aguero93:20]

I actually agree with what Marvin said earlier. Some of the rhetoric should be toned down a bit. Journalists are taking the more extreme quotes and making generalisations of our entire fanbase on the basis of it. There are plenty of ways to criticise certain journalists and publications without resorting to veiled threats and overly abusive language. Don't give them the ammunition they desperately crave. As others on here have shown, it's far more effective to highlight their ignorance of the subject at hand, and at times rank hypocrisy, in a considered manner rather than just venting anger at them (as tempting as that is at times).

Sports Journalists are fucking cockroaches. Fuck them. They should go spend some time on RAWK and see the shite there.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Always makes me laugh when Wenger comes out and says stuff about us. He's hated us ever since the takeover but what he conveniently forgets is that if diamond dealer Danny Fiszman hadn't had pumped in over £50M of his own money into Arsenal in the mid 90's he would of never been able to sign players like Henry,Overmars,Pires(even Bergkamp was bought with that money before Wenger arrived) to help him compete with Utd.

Money HAS always talked in football

We sped up the mortgage repayments on their ground, they certainly didn’t invest it on the playing side of things.

 

[Salford_Blue]

I think Wenger’s first side would have failed ffp. He benefited from Fiszmann bankrolling him. He got the initial heavy investment he is now trying to deny anyone else, such a hypocrite.

From an Independent report in 2011...

Fiszman was real reason Arsenal did so well, says Adams
Former Gunners stalwart explains why money always counts when it comes to winning titles

• By Nick Szczepanik
• Sunday 24 July 2011 00:00

Those calling for more spending on the current team will be interested to learn how highly Adams rated Fiszman's contribution. "I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world.

"I'd like to feel that a good manager can get the best out of those players once you've got them, but more often than not, if you've got the best players you win the League," he added. "And more important than that, if you've got the best defensive record you win the League. Fact."



Wikipedia states he purchased a 8% share in Arsenal in 1991, just prior to the Premier League/Champions League inceptions up in 1992.

Coincidence?

 

[hello]

A poorly researched journalist?

Some are being far too kind. He has chosen to lift Prestwich Blue's information and present it as his own, ignoring the relevancy and facts to maintain his ongoing narrative.

He's not a journalist. He's a chiseler.

An absolute disgrace to the profession.

tolmie, you should do a irony piece on the unicredit saga, Italian state gives italian bank billions > Italian bank extends sponsorship to UEFA competitions > UEFA rewrites FFP regulations that suddenly allow Milan club to owner invest. Reeks of corruption and not covered in the press at all, all just per coincidence and nothing to see.

 

[kaz7]

This was my feeling too when I read the article too.

Is City's PR That incompetent ?

They are rather busy i expect,the media would just say the dirty human rights abusers sre trying to shut down free speech,it's a no win situation...for now

 

[Cityinmyheart]

Sorry probably used the wrong chose of words. It will be based on an assessment of the merits of City's appeal.

CAS dont just automatically suspend a ban at the request of an individual or organisation. From my understanding (im not a lawyer or anything and like everyone on here we have just read a lot about it from previous cases etc) you have to have put forward a case that shows you have a chance of success at appeal. IF CAS do suspend the ban then it does indeed mean the case we put forward to them has a chance of success. Weather that means a reduction of ban/fine or acquittal remains to be seen

In order for City to get an injunction against Uefa's decision. City lawyers in my view will have to establish the following:

1. Prima Facie Case: Like you stated above, City lawyers have to show that we have a good case and not a frivolous one with good chance of success when the trial begins.

2. Balance of Convenience/ Incovenience: The party that suffers the most if the injunction is not granted has more chance of getting decision in its favour.

3. Irreparable loss. That if the injunction is not granted and later we win the case, it wont compensate us for our damage to reputation and missing out on a CL campaign if later CAS give findings in our favour.

I believe all 3 of the above limbs to get an injunction do favour us. I am positive about this.

 

[SilverFox2]

I can say what I want, whether you like it or not I don't give a shit. I'm still reading articles daily on this as you are and asking questions and making suggestions it is a DISCUSSION FORUM. You can keep trying to shut me up all you want. Sorry, I don't have time to make 47,000 posts like you but my support is true. You are unbelievably naive if you think that this is an open and shut case and we will come out smelling of roses, we are in a fucked up situation whether you like it or not.

You hate UEFA I get it but to be so convinced that the club has done no wrong without looking at the immense possibilities that WE MIGHT HAVE is stupid.

I don't know about you but my stupidity was initiated by my late father who insisted at a very early age I should support City.

For more years than I care to remember I was laughed at and criticised as I tried to justify our on and off field antics. In short I don't expect perfection and have been the biggest critic of our previous management and the players we fielded. But it is character building being a City fan.

Nowadays I am more relaxed and frankly have got used to success and admire the business plans our owner has funded so just like paying accountants to find your way round tax liabilities I have no doubt our BP found ways to circumnavigate corrupt investment rules in between making our Investment Phase work in those early days which were designed to completely HALT a faultless BP (illegal in the real world).
I have complete faith in our management team and anyone who talks about "breaking the spirit" of such rules ought to consider the "spirit" of why they were initiated.

I hope our owners stay for ever having witnessed proper investment at City for the first time in my admittedly longer life now than most on here. They have made me proud to get the reflected glory of their success rather than the almost masochistic pride of being a proud City fan yesteryear.