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

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

Jose Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues

Thanks for the reply.

I couldn’t see anything adverse listed against him after a brief look on the internet.

Though I did note that there were quite a few decisions reversed or reduced by CAS of bans and fines he had made judgment on in cases for UEFA.

Let’s not forget when CAS ruled on the original City appeal, they included the following ‘In dismissing City’s claim, Cas did say the appeal was “not without merit” and the alleged leaking of information by members of the investigation or the Uefa administration about the proceedings against City was worrisome’.

Even though the appeal was dismissed as no judgment had at that point been made by UEFA, CAS noted its concern regarding UEFA, so I would not count anyone at such an organisation which is infested with corruption, and any individual within it necessarily being unaware or clear of such corruption.

Also the person representing City Lord Pannick did lose a case recently in the family court representing Sheikh Mohammed, but did manage to make the government reverse their prorogation of parliament which had gone to the court of appeal which he won with a unanimous verdict, so he has been shown to handle cases with significant pressures attached to them, and everything I have read about him on the internet seems positive regarding his legal abilities.

Anyhow, not too long to go until we found out what CAS rule, though as many point out CAS is an arbitration service and not a court.

I have complete faith in what Khaldoon and Soriano have stated, they have not let Manchester City down in any aspects so far.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Thanks for the reply.

I couldn’t see anything adverse listed against him after a brief look on the internet.

Though I did note that there were quite a few decisions reversed or reduced by CAS of bans and fines he had made judgment on in cases for UEFA.

Let’s not forget when CAS ruled on the original City appeal, they included the following ‘In dismissing City’s claim, Cas did say the appeal was “not without merit” and the alleged leaking of information by members of the investigation or the Uefa administration about the proceedings against City was worrisome’.

Even though the appeal was dismissed as no judgment had at that point been made by UEFA, CAS noted its concern regarding UEFA, so I would not count anyone at such an organisation which is infested with corruption, and any individual within it necessarily being unaware or clear of such corruption.

Also the person representing City Lord Pannick did lose a case recently in the family court representing Sheikh Mohammed, but did manage to make the government reverse their prorogation of parliament which had gone to the court of appeal which he won with a unanimous verdict, so he has been shown to handle cases with significant pressures attached to them, and everything I have read about him on the internet seems positive regarding his legal abilities.

Anyhow, not too long to go until we found out what CAS rule, though as many point out CAS is an arbitration service and not a court.

I have complete faith in what Khaldoon and Soriano have stated, they have not let Manchester City down in any aspects so far.

Soriano lets the fans down every year with his revenue extraction drive at the expense of ordinary fans. Just saying.

 

[cheekybids]

I don't have problem with Sam Lee personally, I feel he is subconsciously thinking about this whole issue from a United standpoint rather than deliberately. He is at least trying to be professional and unbiased most of the time, I can see that.

Journalists will jump on the backs of City fans if we raise an issue with it, they seem to be trying to silence or dismiss their views more frequently as the months pass. At the same time though, how would it go down if a City fan ended up as one United's main press correspondents? Or an Everton fan for Liverpool? Our fanbase has been getting stick for not being able to be objective or being unreasonable but the United and Liverpool fanbases are about as blinkered as can be. Sam Lee is treated very reasonably by most City fans from what I can see, I can't see the same happening at those clubs. Most journos are treated reasonably contrary to the picture some of them have been trying to paint, just so they can peddle their agendas in peace. They wouldn't dare try and get away with the same things over Liverpool or United. Not a single one of them journos that have been criticising the City fanbase in this. We saw that with the hacking scandal.

I agree with what you say but I want to make a few points;

I just want balance in reporting, just because someone doesn’t talk about us in absolute c*nty way doesn’t mean he’s not being sly.

Sam is privy to what we read but where is his article on City possibly being cleared, has he mentioned what if Sheik Mansour didn’t make the payments alleged?

has he said what could happen if City are cleared & should charges be laid upon others.

A great article would be 10 things that could happen if City found guilty / innocent.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

Soriano lets the fans down every year with his revenue extraction drive at the expense of ordinary fans. Just saying.

I was thinking more about being honest with the fans regarding where the club is heading and in their promises to make our club one of the best in the world.

Fair point though, about time the ticket prices were frozen.

 

[WRicko]

As I have stated I am not an expert here but not sure a simple bank statement would do it, because from my understanding, it has not been questioned that we received the money from those companies, but that part of that money previously was provided by ADUG.

This is what I don’t get I am not sure where UEFA think the money came from seems there are a few options the Sheik (confusion over title ) Etihad but having come from somewhere else first either Sheik or Abu Dhabi government or investment vehicle or ADUG i.e something UEFA think is in affect the Sheik or the sheik himself.

when UEFA looked at this originally surely they must have checked not just where we said the money came from not just the contracts but where the money actually came from. So would our investors and auditors.

If the money came from the sheik ADUG or CFG then we are banged to rights but why would it come from him directly we are surely not that dumb. And why would it when Etihad had a legal obligation to pay it.

If it came from Etihad the government or one of there investment vehicles then surely we are clear even if it had previously belonged to the sheik because how could they ever know other than the hacked emails which are surely not proof enough.

As far as can work out only CFG ADUG and the sheik would constitute related parties non of the other Abu Dhabi investment vehicles or the state itself would.

As I recall people mentioning on here Etihad was bailed out by some investment vehicle but since Etihad is not related and the bail out is public record and not related party this should not be an issue.

Loosing money but still spending money on sponsorship does not make it dodgy. Etihad have spent money on other sponsorship whilst loosing money so have other business.

 

[Metalartin]

I agree with what you say but I want to make a few points;

I just want balance in reporting, just because someone doesn’t talk about us in absolute c*nty way doesn’t mean he’s not being sly.

Sam is privy to what we read but where is his article on City possibly being cleared, has he mentioned what if Sheik Mansour didn’t make the payments alleged?

has he said what could happen if City are cleared & should charges be laid upon others.

A great article would be 10 things that could happen if City found guilty / innocent.

Fair comment really, he could have made more of an effort to be balanced in that one, although I've not read the whole thing.

 

[Metalartin]

Loosing money but still spending money on sponsorship does not make it dodgy. Etihad have spent money on other sponsorship whilst loosing money so have other business.

I'm not an expert but from what I have read the airline industry fluctuates frequently, many airlines are unprofitable:

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0510/4-reasons-why-airlines-are-always-struggling.aspx

Unprofitable Airlines Continue to Fly
An industry that has been known to be unprofitable for decades would be eventually forced by market participants to undergo consolidation and rationalization in an attempt to find a better way to do business. Not so for the airline industry, for whom this basic business precept does not seem to fly, so to speak. Many unprofitable airlines continue to remain in business despite years of substantial losses, because various stakeholders cannot afford to let them close.
Closing down a large unprofitable airline would involve the loss of thousands of jobs, inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of travelers, and millions in losses for the airline's creditors. Not to mention the loss of national pride if the airline in question is a national carrier.

What we know is they are the official airline of the capital of the UAE by royal decree. So they are going nowhere but I seem to remember there were rumours of them merging with Emirates not too long ago. I've had someone(claiming to work in finance) try and make out that the state covering the losses of its own airline is illegal practice in itself, which UEFA could come after City for. Which I think I was right to call out as bullshit.

What Etihad make is nothing to do with Fair Market Value either, many try and establish that link to say "it's inflated". Since it's going nowhere, they would obviously like it to become profitable some day. A major sponsorship deal for one of the most watched teams, in the most watched football league, seems like a good way to grow their market-share. Along with improving their product/service, I can't think of much else they could do to grow enough to become profitable. So who is anyone to tell them they can't sponsor a football team? I struggle to make sense of what people think is wrong about that.

Also I've nothing against PSG but we have a case where Qatar own the club, they own Qatar airways(also make losses while sponsoring numerous football teams) and they obviously own the Qatar Tourism Authority where the bulk of PSG's sponsorship revenue comes from but UEFA are obviously fine with that and how much is paid. They've been clever with keeping that sponsorship off the shirt in a way, as then it draws less attention. City by contrast aren't owned by Abu Dhabi but Sheikh Mansour himself. I think that also shows the sponsorship is legitimate because Etihad do want their name seen by all and it isn't just a way of "funnelling money into Manchester City" on Sheikh Mansour's behalf.

It seems like we can't win. Even if we switch to a major global/western sponsor, they will just repeat the same things. They'll probably invent conspiracy theories to establish links to the UAE.

 

[cheekybids]

Fair comment really, he could have made more of an effort to be balanced in that one, although I've not read the whole thing.

how many years has he reported on City & he has always reported from the other angle. He gets a free pass & doesn’t deserve it.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I agree with what you say but I want to make a few points;

I just want balance in reporting, just because someone doesn’t talk about us in absolute c*nty way doesn’t mean he’s not being sly.

Sam is privy to what we read but where is his article on City possibly being cleared, has he mentioned what if Sheik Mansour didn’t make the payments alleged?

has he said what could happen if City are cleared & should charges be laid upon others.

A great article would be 10 things that could happen if City found guilty / innocent.

Not going to happen, we all know it would be...10 things that could happen when City are found guilty.

 

[cheekybids]

Not going to happen, we all know it would be...10 things that could happen when City are found guilty.

That’s the free pass I’m talking about.