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

[asahartford1]

When this is all over can we not get a £500m loan from the sheik with little or no interest payable when we feel like it? Surely that is a way of circumventing FFP in the future and be like our red friends

No

 

[blueparrot]

When this is all over can we not get a £500m loan from the sheik with little or no interest payable when we feel like it? Surely that is a way of circumventing FFP in the future and be like our red friends

I don’t think the Sheik has any interest in circumventing FFP and he wants us but mainly the CFG group to be self sustaining.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Lee's tweet says
"in the PL handbook it says that a club making a false statement/falsifying a doc in support of an application for a Uefa license will face action "

I thought that the whole charge is based on allegedly making a false statement to FFP requirements - that we did not tell UEFA that a lot more money came from the owner, when it actually did.

If in answer to "how much did the owner put in?", we said "50M" when actually it was "80M, 30M of which was funnelled through go-betweens" would be a false statement in the accounts (if both true and provable, of course!)

The auditors would presumably not have investigated beyond who gave City the money, and are outside all this.

Prestwich Blue could answer better than me but I thought that the overall loss figure was not disputed. We didn't like the process but admitted we had breached fair play rules and paid the fine. The Der Spiegel allegations relate to where the money came from ie was it genuine sponsorship. I also thought the overall sponsorship figure was accepted as fair value.
Of course we have not seen all the evidence but nothing in the hacked emails confirms where the money came from. As others have stated if we have bank statements and transfer details that would trump any comments in the emails, not least because of the confusion over the courtesy titles of His Royal Highness and who sent and received the emails.
I understand your point but would suggest that rather than "making false statements" in the accounts we may only be guilty of not providing all the documents. I hope this makes sense!

 

[solley attwell]

No, that's not how it works. The loan would appear on the accounts.

Yes it would appear as debt but only the interest paid would be classed as an expenditure

 

[nmc]

Prestwich Blue could answer better than me but I thought that the overall loss figure was not disputed. We didn't like the process but admitted we had breached fair play rules and paid the fine. The Der Spiegel allegations relate to where the money came from ie was it genuine sponsorship. I also thought the overall sponsorship figure was accepted as fair value.
Of course we have not seen all the evidence but nothing in the hacked emails confirms where the money came from. As others have stated if we have bank statements and transfer details that would trump any comments in the emails, not least the confusion over the courtesy titles of His Royal Highness and who sent and received the emails.
I understand your point but would suggest that rather than "making false statements" in the accounts we may only be guilty of not providing all the documents. I hope this makes sense!

And if Der Spiegel’s allegations are true - then Etihad are also guilty of misreporting - which makes both the Clubs and Etihad auditors also guilty by association because both sets of accounts have been signed off. Keep thinking these allegations are so amateur but can it all be that simple?

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Yeah, agree. I assume our defence will reference other cases, but if it boils down to PSG got away with it so we should too, we’re in trouble.

From what I’ve read and understand, a lot is riding on what we described as “irrefutable evidence”. Pessimist in me wonders if this is irrefutable why hasn’t UEFA seen it? Optimist in me trusts in Khaldoon.

Because , didn't they say it was too late and we had messed with the process ?

 

[Prater70]

Good point Bobby O. Bank statements could be the irrefutable evidence which we were not prepared to show. Can't be as simple as that can it?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

And if Der Spiegel’s allegations are true - then Etihad are also guilty of misreporting - which makes both the Clubs and Etihad auditors also guilty by association because both sets of accounts have been signed off. Keep thinking these allegations are so amateur but can it all be that simple?

Yes if true then the reputational damage to both sets of auditors is huge. I have been confused all along by the UEFA case. They must have more than a few hacked emails.
What I dislike most about the Athletic piece is it assumes we are guilty. By not mentioning that we have already paid a huge fine for making too big a loss on the same set of accounts and it all happened around eight years ago
Whatever it says in their handbook I think it is absurd to suggest the Premier League would dock points. During the period in question the PL did not even have FFP rules in place. This context is crucial to the Athletic's article but they chose not to publish a fair and balanced account of events.

 

[KS55]

When this is all over can we not get a £500m loan from the sheik with little or no interest payable when we feel like it? Surely that is a way of circumventing FFP in the future and be like our red friends

We don't need money!

 

[blue cigar]

I wish the hearing was pay per view, let everyone see what's going on