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

[VOOMER]

Perhaps Prestwhich is best to answer this but either way looks bad for us surely it has to be Etihad to MCFC no ADUG shareholder or ADUG or it’s inflated or related party or perhaps or both

Sniff Sniff

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The ADUG sole shareholder is Sheikh Mansour., according to City's accounts. So on the surface that could be seen as damning I guess. But as I've said ad nauseas, it's all about context.

I spoke to two high profile football finance commentators about those articles. One was Kieran Maguire of Liverpool University (who's a Brighton lad not a scouser). Him and Swiss Ramble are the two people people I look up to when it comes to football financial stuff. His considered view was that there was no smoking gun in those articles. I also spoke to David Conn, who isn't exactly known for going out on a limb to defend City, despite being a fan. His view about the articles was "So what?". In other words, there was nothing particularly sensational in them. Again, no smoking gun.

Now think about it. Simon Pearce's reply could have been that smoking gun if it confirmed the money was coming from ADUG. Yet was that reply shown in the article? It wasn't that I can recall. And if it was, it certainly wasn't a smoking gun. Maybe his reply said something like "The money isn't coming from ADUG. It's coming from Etihad via the Executive Council so that's not our problem". Or something else that didn't incriminate us.

The fact they didn't print it suggests that not only did it really not help their case but possibly strengthened ours. So maybe that reply is part of our defence to this.

Edit: just seen Paladin's answer, which is somewhat less wordy than mine but says the same thing.

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

 

[richards30]

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

that was khaldoon that allegedly said that wasn’t it?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

that was khaldoon that allegedly said that wasn’t it?

Absolutely not. He is not involved in any of the stolen correspondence.

Bareda, Chullimas and Pearce.

As I say, one troubling response was 'we can do what we want'

Can't recall the context.

 

[KS55]

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

That response was in answer to a diff question, something like "can we book this as received on such a date?". I don't know if we are accused formally of messing with timings.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

The question that was the answer to was about whether we could amend the amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements. Without knowing the full story, if we agree a deal with a sponsor to pay us £100m over 10 years, it really doesn't matter if we get it as 10 x £10m annual payments or in other, irregular amounts, as long as we record it properly.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That response was in answer to a diff question, something like "can we book this as received on such a date?". I don't know if we are accused formally of messing with timings.

You are correct, I do recall that now.

With regards backdating monies.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The question that was the answer to was about whether we could amend the amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements. Without knowing the full story, if we agree a deal with a sponsor to pay us £100m over 10 years, it really doesn't matter if we get it as 10 x £10m annual payments or in other, irregular amounts, as long as we record it properly.

Thanks mate. It certainly opens us up to more questioning, however?

If we are saying the EC have been forced to meet Etihad's shortfall obligations in part, it doesn't dovetail too well if it also demonstrates we can simply make a call for Etihad cash to be backdated or front loaded?

 

[dickie davies]

The question that was the answer to was about whether we could amend the amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements. Without knowing the full story, if we agree a deal with a sponsor to pay us £100m over 10 years, it really doesn't matter if we get it as 10 x £10m annual payments or in other, irregular amounts, as long as we record it properly.

So are you saying it's legitimate to receive £10m from a sponsor, but if we're making a profit already and don't need the dosh that financial year, we could record it as £2m and record the balance of 8 the following year?

 

[Nightmare Walking]

If someone offers you a deal and you are guilty, then you snatch their hands off. The fact we refused any such deal and seem willing to fight to the end, speaks absolute volumes to me.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks mate. It certainly opens us up to more questioning, however?

If we are saying the EC have been forced to meet Etihad's shortfall obligations in part, it doesn't dovetail too well if it also demonstrates we can simply make a call for Etihad cash to be backdated or front loaded?

We don't know what the agreements specify though.

They could say something like £x million a year for 5 years, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Or a total of £x million spread over a 5 year period, to be paid as required. When United did their deal with Nike, they took a big upfront payment.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So are you saying it's legitimate to receive £10m from a sponsor, but if we're making a profit already and don't need the dosh that financial year, we could record it as £2m and record the balance of 8 the following year?

No. If they give us £10m for a year then I reckon we'd have to record £10m. But if say we asked for £15m one year, we could potentially record it as £10m one year, with the £5m going into that year's accounts as a deferred payment and recorded as revenue in the next year's accounts.

That's what happens with season ticket money paid before the year end. We record the cash but not as revenue, because it's related to the following financial year.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The ADUG sole shareholder is Sheikh Mansour., according to City's accounts. So on the surface that could be seen as damning I guess. But as I've said ad nauseas, it's all about context.

I spoke to two high profile football finance commentators about those articles. One was Kieran Maguire of Liverpool University (who's a Brighton lad not a scouser). Him and Swiss Ramble are the two people people I look up to when it comes to football financial stuff. His considered view was that there was no smoking gun in those articles. I also spoke to David Conn, who isn't exactly known for going out on a limb to defend City, despite being a fan. His view about the articles was "So what?". In other words, there was nothing particularly sensational in them. Again, no smoking gun.

Now think about it. Simon Pearce's reply could have been that smoking gun if it confirmed the money was coming from ADUG. Yet was that reply shown in the article? It wasn't that I can recall. And if it was, it certainly wasn't a smoking gun. Maybe his reply said something like "The money isn't coming from ADUG. It's coming from Etihad via the Executive Council so that's not our problem". Or something else that didn't incriminate us.

The fact they didn't print it suggests that not only did it really not help their case but possibly strengthened ours. So maybe that reply is part of our defence to this.

Edit: just seen Paladin's answer, which is somewhat less wordy than mine but says the same thing.

There was no published reply. I totally get the point about context and seeing Pearce’s reply would clearly be useful! Maybe they have the reply, maybe not. Maybe Pierce phoned Chumilas.

I thought it was odd the email used the expression ADUG shareholder. We know it’s Sheikh Mansour
so why not name him. Hence thinking (speculatively) that it could be their internal code for the Executive Council.

Still, I lean towards there being a high likelihood ADUG paid the funds to Etihad. And that suits your assertion we would have been better off if Etihad was treated as a related party.

By the way, the wording for the Chumilas email was not from Der Spiegel. It was a South African news outlet. I tried comparing the coverage from a series of different outlets and often there was subtle differences in the information or additional information to Der Spiegel.

 

[WRicko]

Don’t suppose it matter but I assume that the Etihad deal is very flexible as it includes sponsorship for bits of the campus that are built at different times

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

We don't know what the agreements specify though.

They could say something like £x million a year for 5 years, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Or a total of £x million spread over a 5 year period, to be paid as required. When United did their deal with Nike, they took a big upfront payment.

It's perfectly normal.

 

[WRicko]

The ADUG sole shareholder is Sheikh Mansour., according to City's accounts. So on the surface that could be seen as damning I guess. But as I've said ad nauseas, it's all about context.

I spoke to two high profile football finance commentators about those articles. One was Kieran Maguire of Liverpool University (who's a Brighton lad not a scouser). Him and Swiss Ramble are the two people people I look up to when it comes to football financial stuff. His considered view was that there was no smoking gun in those articles. I also spoke to David Conn, who isn't exactly known for going out on a limb to defend City, despite being a fan. His view about the articles was "So what?". In other words, there was nothing particularly sensational in them. Again, no smoking gun.

Now think about it. Simon Pearce's reply could have been that smoking gun if it confirmed the money was coming from ADUG. Yet was that reply shown in the article? It wasn't that I can recall. And if it was, it certainly wasn't a smoking gun. Maybe his reply said something like "The money isn't coming from ADUG. It's coming from Etihad via the Executive Council so that's not our problem". Or something else that didn't incriminate us.

The fact they didn't print it suggests that not only did it really not help their case but possibly strengthened ours. So maybe that reply is part of our defence to this.

Edit: just seen Paladin's answer, which is somewhat less wordy than mine but says the same thing.

what did Swiss Ramble Conn and the professor say as to why it’s not a smoking gun like the media etc think ?

 

[dickie davies]

No. If they give us £10m for a year then I reckon we'd have to record £10m. But if say we asked for £15m one year, we could potentially record it as £10m one year, with the £5m going into that year's accounts as a deferred payment and recorded as revenue in the next year's accounts.

That's what happens with season ticket money paid before the year end. We record the cash but not as revenue, because it's related to the following financial year.

I've read that six times now and it makes no sense at all :-(

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

Reporters are there to sell papers, or to get people to watch their programmes. I have always said,that if the reporters, pundits say it often enough they hope that the mud will stick.

Why do you think that after a few days/weeks without any story about our UEFA ban they have to rehash the story. It will only get worse the nearer we get to that date. The time has now come to put in gagging orders, so that they are not allowed to say or print anything about our case.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

The time has now come as we nearer to the date of of case with CAS. To issue a blanket gagging order, so that papers, broadcasters are not allowed print or say anything about our case.

They will only be able to say in general terms about the case, e.g. This is the first day of the case, with Manchester City giving their evidence.

 

[dickie davies]

The time has now come as we nearer to the date of of case with CAS. To issue a blanket gagging order, so that papers, broadcasters are not allowed print or say anything about our case.

They will only be able to say in general terms about the case, e.g. This is the first day of the case, with Manchester City giving their evidence.

You can't stop the press reporting that UEFA have found us in breach of regulations and we are appealing at the CAS the imposed fine and Champions league ban, as that is true
In fact if we are so confident in a positive outcome we should be helping them report it