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.
@Prestwich_Blue maybe colin can confirm but i`m sure its been discussed that as long as the money came out of etihads account and has been accounted properly in their books then it doesnt matter how the money got there?

Correct so long as it doesn't come from our owner ! Having heard Tabas et al - I do wonder if this is all hot air and UEFA don't really have anything more than a few leaked emails that they are interpreting however they feel suits their purpose.
 
@Prestwich_Blue maybe colin can confirm but i`m sure its been discussed that as long as the money came out of etihads account and has been accounted properly in their books then it doesnt matter how the money got there?
That’s exactly correct. No laws were broken whatever took place so there’s nothing that can be done if the money flowed from Etihad to City. UEFA have no power to see Etihad’s books.
 
Are City even going to appeal the email thing? I would have thought that the whole approach would have been to make the case that the IC had not fairly/properly processed their initial judgement before making their referral to the AC?
 
Far from an expert on this, but to my limited understanding if uefa claim HRH put in an extra 50m via Etihad airways and both citys accounts (audited remember) and Etihad accounts (also audited) say that all of the etihad sponsorship money came from Etihad accounts into citys then they can think what they like. From a legal pov there is no wrong doing. Game over, cheque please.
Iirc, Etihad made a statement at the time of our appearance before the control bodies, that they themselves paid all the sponsorship money.
 
@Prestwich_Blue maybe colin can confirm but i`m sure its been discussed that as long as the money came out of etihads account and has been accounted properly in their books then it doesnt matter how the money got there?
Yes and no. It's more complicated than that.

If we can show, say, £50m coming in from Etihad for a year's sponsorship then that's fine, unless UEFA can prove some or all of that money came directly from ADUG. Even then, if Etihad is deemed to be a related party (which UEFA was seemingly trying to claim in 2014) and the sponsorship is deemed to be fair value, then it's completely irrelevant where the money came from. On the other hand, if Etihad isn't deemed to be a related party and UEFA can show some of that sponsorship came from ADUG, then that would class as disguised owner investment.

We know, with some degree of certainty, that Etihad only paid a minor part of the sponsorship out of their own pocket. The Der Spiegel articles that revealed that explicitly claimed that the additional money came from ADUG, which on the surface is pretty damning (if Etihad isn't a related party of course). However I've shown that the 'HH' referred to in the email is far more likely to have been Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the Crown Prince. I've also shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, which MBZ heads, were funding the Etihad sponsorship, at least in 2010.

So to summarise:
  • Is Etihad a related party? If yes, then if the sponsorship is 'fair value' it's fine, however it's funded. If no, then the source of funding could be crucial, if it's directly from ADUG. Even so, if City can show that money originally came from ADEC then we've done nothing wrong.
  • Were Aabar & Etisalat related parties? If so, and the sponsorships weren't deemed fair value, then the excess should have been subtracted from relevant income. But UEFA didn't do that, even knowing the value of the sponsorships at the time, if not the source of funding.
  • UEFA seemingly tried to argue that all three were related parties in 2014 and that the sponsorship from the two other companies were overvalued. We didn't accept that they were related parties (and we had good grounds not to). We did agree not to increase the smaller two though.
  • UEFA would therefore have prove that Etihad (as well as Aabar & Etisalat) weren't related parties, which is directly opposed to their 2014 position (which was that they were) and that the original source of any additional funding was ADUG and ADUG only.
Had those made the difference to us passing and failing FFP then we might be in trouble if they could prove it was disguised owner investment that made the difference. But it didn't. We failed anyway & were sanctioned (and that's another story altogether, as I've said).

It's like the police clocking you speeding at 37 in a 30 limit and you accepting a speed awareness course, which you attend. Then they write to you and say that you were really doing 40 and they're going to summons you and you'll get 3 points.
 
Last edited:
Not sure our owners have been that bothered about whether we are idolised by the media or not. They bought as an investment and it is certainly now proving its worth.
Win or lose at CAS things will not change regarding the media so if g14 legacy have found a way to stifle our earnings we must fight to defend the BP that our initial owner speculated upon.

Media hatred of us is a long term given, lets see what the first stage of our litigation process achieves. Perhaps everything, perhaps nothing, perhaps a few steps.
Whatever the outcome I feel the old City finding its way in a resentful sector has gone.
We have equity partners with expectations and an aggressive reaction to things that threaten development.

As others have said f### the rest and their media friends.
The point about equity partners is well made. Even if CFG were relaxed after a positive verdict, those partners might not be and would want aggressive action against press libels. Mansour, however, still controls CFG, but would not want to disappoint the partners.
 
Yes and no. It's more complicated than that.

If we can show, say, £50m coming in from Etihad for a year's sponsorship then that's fine, unless UEFA can prove some or all of that money came directly from ADUG. Even then, if Etihad is deemed to be a related party (which UEFA was seemingly trying to claim in 2014) and the sponsorship is deemed to be fair value, then it's completely irrelevant where the money came from. On the other hand, if Etihad isn't deemed to be a related party and UEFA can show some of that sponsorship came from ADUG, then that would class as disguised owner investment.

We know, with some degree of certainty, that Etihad only paid a minor part of the sponsorship out of their own pocket. The Der Spiegel articles that revealed that explicitly claimed that the additional money came from ADUG, which on the surface is pretty damning (if Etihad isn't a related party of course). However I've shown that the 'HH' referred to in the email is far more likely to have been Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the Crown Prince. I've also shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, which MBZ heads, were funding the Etihad sponsorship, at least in 2010.

So to summarise:
  • Is Etihad a related party? If yes, then if the sponsorship is 'fair value' it's fine, however it's funded. If no, then the source of funding could be crucial, if it's directly from ADUG. Even so, if City can show that money originally came from ADEC then we've done nothing wrong.
  • Were Aabar & Etisalat related parties? If so, and the sponsorships weren't deemed fair value, then the excess should have been subtracted from relevant income. But UEFA didn't do that, even knowing the value of the sponsorships at the time, if not the source of funding.
  • UEFA seemingly tried to argue that all three were related parties in 2014 and that the sponsorship from the two other companies were overvalued. We didn't accept that they were related parties (and we had good grounds not to). We did agree not to increase the smaller two though.
  • UEFA would therefore have prove that Etihad (as well as Aabar & Etisalat) weren't related parties, which is directly opposed to their 2014 position that they were, and that the original source of any additional funding was ADUG and ADUG only.
Had those made the difference to us passing and failing FFP then we might be in trouble if they could prove it was disguised owner investment that made the difference. But it didn't. We failed anyway & were sanctioned (and that's another story altogether, as I've said).

It's like the police clocking you speeding at 37 in a 30 limit and you accepting a speed awareness course, which you attend. Then they write to you and say that you were really doing 40 and they're going to summons you and you'll get 3 points.
It may be damned by faint praise but you are undoubtedly the brainiest bloke on Blue Moon
 
It’s as plain as the nose on Bacon chops face what the g14 are trying to do hear maximum damage so we can never get back to where we are again. Surely any independent court can see just exactly what’s going on. But we’ve been shafted and treated unfairly since 2008 I just pray that going through an independent court and not eufa’s kangaroo court sees an end to all this utter bollocks but I’m not holding my breath it just feels like everyone is against us we aren’t wanted and never will be, but that just makes me love my club even more and I would love nothing more than to win this case and tell those horrible bent bastards to fuck off once and for all!
 
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.