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

[marco]

How can UEFA decide what is and what is not fair value in any sponsorship deal. That is surely upto the company concerned as to how much they want to pay any sponsorship deal. If I run a company (which I don't) decide I want to pay MCFC £100 million year for the name of my company to be put on the shirts that is upto me and not some stuff up official in UEFA to tell me that that is not allowed, as that is not fair value for money.

they employ evaluation companys which will give them a reasonable cost and if its not in the boundries of that then its deemed unreasonable

 

[domalino]

Have a read of this regarding Yves Leterme and the PSG case back in 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.html

Seems Yves Leterme had the interests of Qatar at heart allowing PSG to get off the hook. Interesting that Bein Sports had at the time secured a multi-million dollar deal to become a UEFA partner

I think that this along with other information could effectively show UEFA for what they are if we decide to go after them

Yves Leterme is bent as fuck, and even other people in UEFA knew it.

He single-handedly allowed PSG's insane sponsorships to stand, he's the person who supposedly refused to hear our defence, and he's the chair of the leakiest confidential chamber in the world.

If City genuinely think there's been a dedicated attack on them, he's the guy they need to go after in civil court after CAS.

 

[oakiecokie]

If all you do on a daily basis is throw insults at people that don't share your opinion, whether they are talking shit or not you can't have many teeth left.

For some reason I don`t see too many "likes" on your posts.Wonder why that could be ?

 

[SPIDERBOY]

What's the script with the Nissan sponsorship of the CL......They still our partner?

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

marco unreasonable in their eyes maybe but not in my eyes. I very much doubt if that ever went to court, UEFA would end up loosing. As that would be consider a restraint of trade.

 

[OB1]

I thought as much but I'm not an accountant so didn't want to jump to conclusions.

So along with the many procedural arguments we could make, our main substantive argument could simply be that it doesn't matter where Etihad got their money from, they are not a related party because there is nobody at City who exerts significant control over Etihad?

The problem remains that if Mansour gives his money to Etihad purely in order for them to pass it on as sponsorship, the substance of the transaction is Mansour is investing in his own business and its then not about whether Etihad are related or not. If Mansour paid Etihad money as part of some other business transaction e.g. hiring planes for personal travel, that would not be a problem.

 

[sktooblue]

My take is that UEFA haven't really wanted to pursue this which is why they hoped we would take the small 'pinch'.
When we didn't, the 'elite' G14 continued to apply pressure for UEFA to act. UEFA have announced the unprecedented 2 year ban in the hope we accept a compromise of a 1 year ban. Under these circumstances I think it is quite possible that UEFA will not have followed procedures because they didn't expect (or want) to be in this position.

If we don't concede (and I don't think we will) and if we win the appeal then this will severely damage UEFA's integrity (funny I know) and their finances. At this point the G14 will wrestle power away from a weak UEFA and we will be in a completely different war.

Whatever way I look at it, the G14 cannot lose.

 

[Odd socks]

This could go one of three ways :-
1 all charges dropped as an oversight by UEFA.
2. A world club championship league bankrolled by the Middle East made up of the world's best teams but must not include more than 1 team from any one city for financial reasons ( Everton are on board with this)
Or
3. City breaks every point's/ goalscoring records in League 2 League 1 and the Championship.

 

[davek1808]

they employ evaluation companys which will give them a reasonable cost and if its not in the boundries of that then its deemed unreasonable

Just like they did with PSG lol.

 

[blueinsa]

Everybody needs to read this article to see what kind of person Yves Leterme, the guy who decided our guilt, is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.html

Its quite incredible but not surprising in the least.

Laterme's outburst the other week tells you all you need to know about his so called professionalism and impartiality.

We need to bring the whole stinking house down on top of them all.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Glad you pulled him up on that piece of disinformation. I saw it but was busy at work and intended to come back later but it had slipped my mind.

Meanwhile, here's my lengthy opinion of David Conn and his work that appeared about 1200 pages back on this very thread in June 2019. I like to think that the events of this week are proving me right.

[Conn] turned up to interview Franny for a north west business publication and said that the experience left him knowing that he'd been "talking to a businessman", as if it was the most pejorative label that could possibly be attached to an interviewee. What disgraceful temerity from Franny. Someone arrives to interview you for a business magazine and you talk about business. Conn's description of the episode sounds laughably juvenile.

He's knowledgeable but not to the degree a lot of people think. He has nothing like the level of insight that someone such as Stefan from the 93:20 pod does, but then Stefan is CEO of a public company and also their senior in-house lawyer, with a track record of having advised the boards of top football clubs in his past. Conn qualified as a solicitor but left the profession immediately after doing so. As someone who's supervised newly qualified solicitors and has been one, I can tell you that their ability to navigate complex legal issues such as this is really not all that. He's probably the most knowledgeable current British journalist about business issues in sport, but very much in an 'in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King' kind of way.

I gave my view of this latest piece by Conn in this thread last night, and at quite some length. It's possible he may be right, but if he is, it seems a senseless move from City's point of view. Yet if he's made any attempt to discern why City may be more confident of their case than he is, or what arguments we may put forward that distinguish the case from the precedent he refers to in his article, there's absolutely no sign of it. He may well have asked for a view from a sports law expert before writing, but the problem with that is that to get the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. I don't think I can be confident that he has.

More generally, Conn has shifted away from his usual subject matter when started out, which had a focus on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game. Then, he wrote for The Independent and produced two excellent books. In those days, I thought he was very good - and sometimes better than that. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as a self-appointed conscience of modern football. Beyond some half-baked fan ownership nonsense, never does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.

Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.

All these faults were fully evident in Richer Than God, which I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Like so many of his articles, the book merely served as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.

So sorry, those who profess admiration for him. You admire Conn if you want to. But put me down in the 'not a fan' camp.​

I look at it a bit more simply. For a so-called expert he makes a hell of a lot of mistakes in his articles. He seems like a bit of a bluffer to me.

 

[aguero93:20]

NFI

I would have thought point 2 applied right across the spectrum.

 

[nmc]

Have a read of this regarding Yves Leterme and the PSG case back in 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.html

Seems Yves Leterme had the interests of Qatar at heart allowing PSG to get off the hook. Interesting that Bein Sports had at the time secured a multi-million dollar deal to become a UEFA partner

I think that this along with other information could effectively show UEFA for what they are if we decide to go after them

Can only say “allegedly” but the back handlers going around that secured the Qatari World Cup probably ensured that UEFA would have to climb down in any case with PSG -I’m sure a few at UEFA were less than clean together with a former French President.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Levy will have worked out that if Arsenal did it he’d save the price of a stamp... if Liverpool has pressed print it would probably have printed in City’s offices on City headed paper. And United always run out of paper don't they?

Very good

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Haha. Elementariously, my dear Gordon :)

Is that even a real word? ;-)

 

[davek1808]

Its quite incredible but not surprising in the least.

Laterme's outburst the other week tells you all you need to know about his so called professionalism and impartiality.

We need to bring the whole stinking house down on top of them all.

Let's face it football as we know it is fucked anyway, we may as well be the one's to usher in a new beginning and hopefully if we start taking some of these corrupt fuckers down it might even have the twats in charge of the Premier league and Pigmol looking over their shoulders.

 

[Parisian]

they employ evaluation companys which will give them a reasonable cost and if its not in the boundries of that then its deemed unreasonable

The problem is, as evidenced by my posts above, companies contradict other companies over what is the fair value. And ofc, Der Spiegel in their reports, only take the lowest value given by one firm as the ultimate "true fair value".

Yves Leterme is bent as fuck, and even other people in UEFA knew it.

He single-handedly allowed PSG's insane sponsorships to stand, he's the person who supposedly refused to hear our defence, and he's the chair of the leakiest confidential chamber in the world.

If City genuinely think there's been a dedicated attack on them, he's the guy they need to go after in civil court after CAS.

Says Tariq Panja. The same guy who is saying your Etihad sponsor is worth 8 M€.

In reality, the sponsors have deen downvalued (again). And QTA has even been terminated. It wasn't allowed to stand.





https://www.sportbuzzbusiness.fr/ps...devalues-de-51-millions-deuros-par-luefa.html

According to L’Equipe journalist Etienne Moatti, UEFA and the club’s financial control body (ICFC) devalued these 5 contracts by 37% in total. In detail, the contract signed with QTA would bring 145 million euros per season to the club. A contract that the club itself values only 100M € in the figures presented to UEFA since 2014. After the new investigation recently conducted on the accounts of PSG, this contract would have been valued at 58 million euros annually , "A staggering difference of 42 million euros" writes the journalist. The other 4 partnerships have also been devalued, going from € 38 million to € 29 million. The total haircuts on contracts "made in Qatar" therefore amount to € 51 million, adds the daily. "Sollicited, the Parisian club does not dispute this amount that it must find so as not to be in the eye of the storm again from the start of next season.

Bolded part consistent with the first graphs.



https://www.lemonde.fr/football/art...n-de-cause-devant-le-tas_5438342_1616938.html
According to the FootballLeaks, PSG leaders in May 2018 directly spoke with those of UEFA, including its head of financial fair play, Andrea Traverso. The UEFA delegation then told PSG that the investigation was to be discontinued "for political reasons".

A secret amicable settlement has been proposed by the leaders of the European Confederation. But the investigating chamber of the ICFC refused this agreement and devalued the Qatari sponsors, pushing PSG to sell several players (Javier Pastore, Yuri Berchiche) to garner 60 million euros.

So, apparently, we did get approached like City by the leaders of UEFA but ICFC didn't agree. Bit like the reports saying Ceferin tried to do a deal with you but ICFC went with their investigation.

Nice read about Panja being asked to clarify the points in his article :

 

[blueinsa]

Let's face it football as we know it is fucked anyway, we may as well be the one's to usher in a new beginning and hopefully if we start taking some of these corrupt fuckers down it might even have the twats in charge of the Premier league and Pigmol looking over their shoulders.

Football is fucked mate.

These gangsters aside, bookies and far east criminal gangs have their hooks into it and its as bent as a 9 bob note right now.

Throw in VAR, PiGMOB and its fucked!

 

[Shaelumstash]

That's exactlyvmy understanding as well. If you read the emails one way (as Der Spiegel) intended then you'd come to the view that ADUG paid the balance ofvthe Etihad money.

I've not seen it mentioned yet, so apologies if I'm repeating a conversation. But could there be a potential conflict of interest for the Abu Dhabi Executive Council?

It seems clear they were the ones who funded the majority of Etihad's sponsorship of City. As they are the owners of Etihad, there is clearly no problem there.

According to Conn's article, the US Airlines are pushing for tariffs against Etihad for over-blown state subsidies. They claim the Executive Council have been pumping money in to Etihad, which is anti-competitive. Etihad have denied it and as their accounts are private, there's no way to prove it.

It's understandable City might be reluctant to provide UEFA with the confirmation of this arrangement, because UEFA have such a terrible record or leaking to the press.

So when this goes to CAS, I assume City will want to present evidence that ADEC were the source of the finance, not ADUG. But would ADEC have a conflict of interest in that they wouldn't want this information to prejudice the case with the US airlines?

 

[Tricky_Trev]

Everybody needs to read this article to see what kind of person Yves Leterme, the guy who decided our guilt, is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.html

I’ll have to give it a 2nd try. I just had a go and stopped at:

“Those rules, created to reduce clubs’ indebtedness and level the playing field in an era in which teams were being infused with cash by billionaires and nation-states, require clubs to balance their spending with revenue.”

As if that’s what FFP exists for. “To level the playing field!!” I rage quitted the article.