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

[slbsn]

Good argument, if true. But you would have to place huge reliance on those emails representing the action we finally took. Oh, here come the accounts...

Indeed. Unless proved to be wrong, the AUDITED accounts must have primacy.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

If it is a three day hearing and then a wait of two months for a verdict, how come Tolmie, Khaldoon and Soriano are so bullish?

To be honest, the Mirror article could be bullshit, and whenever I glance at it, which
isn't often, they are most certainly Rag central, more so than any.

 

[MCC]

Could our irrefutable evidence be a copy of ADUG bank statements around the alleged breach - showing no money wired to Etihad Airways. I presume Mansour could rustle up something up.

And if they want a bank statement from MBZ`s or an AD state fund showing money wired to the Etihad Group around the same time marked..."MCFC Etihad Cash", I`m sure we could rustle something up there too, with signed confirmation from the Bank Manager.

 

[slbsn]

In context - if we had misrepresented our accounts - surely we'd have settled this as a 'technical breach' when UEFA offered us a way out. The implications for City, Abu Dhabi, the Sheikh and Etihad would be catastrophic if this was uncovered at CAS. I know we can never rule anything out but would Khaldoon really be as bullish as he is if he was sitting on what effectively is fraud? Just cant see it, there has to be another explanation.

CAS wouldn't prove anything on the accounts but I agree, having a smell around sets of UK accounts is a serious serious issue for directors, owners and auditors. Multiple regulators could be involved and, critically, fraudulent accounts are a matter of CRIMINAL law and could end in jail for executives. So yes I think its very doubtful those people would risk adverse findings of any sort. Likewise the chances that Silverlake did not do due diligence on them is very slim (incidentally a very interesting article just posted on Silverlake on FT - they are serious players https://www.ft.com/content/cb4f8b5a-07c9-4880-a220-f4f5c56d4735). In short I agree with your assessment.

 

[slbsn]

Could our irrefutable evidence be a copy of ADUG bank statements around the alleged breach - showing no money wired to Etihad Airways. I presume Mansour could rustle up something up.

And if they want a bank statement from MBZ`s or an AD state fund showing money wired to the Etihad Group around the same time marked..."MCFC Etihad Cash", I`m sure we could rustle something up there too, with signed confirmation from the Bank Manager.

I think the audited accounts are the irrefutable evidence but yes bank statements are pretty key too.

 

[willipp]

Could our irrefutable evidence be a copy of ADUG bank statements around the alleged breach - showing no money wired to Etihad Airways. I presume Mansour could rustle up something up.

And if they want a bank statement from MBZ`s or an AD state fund showing money wired to the Etihad Group around the same time marked..."MCFC Etihad Cash", I`m sure we could rustle something up there too, with signed confirmation from the Bank Manager.

Im not sure rustling something up is exactly what we need here. ;)

 

[KS55]

I hope no one here is suggesting dishonesty as a policy.

 

[slbsn]

Would that arguable case be based on what City have allowed them to see? Perhaps fearing the leaks, we've decided to take this out of UEFA to resolve it once and for all, and taken legal advice to create the conditions to do so, once the IC rushed the charge through?

It can only be based on either the leaks or what City sent them or a combination of the 2. Some say its purely based on the leaked docs complete with redaction. If so, I think City win at CAS - such documents prove nothing on their own and are too weak to make inferences that trump the accounts and prior disclosures.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

It can only be based on either the leaks or what City sent them or a combination of the 2. Some say its purely based on the leaked docs complete with redaction. If so, I think City win at CAS - such documents prove nothing on their own and are too weak to make inferences that trump the accounts and prior disclosures.

I see it being a combination of the 2, but I don't see us giving our full hand to them because of the damaging leaks to our rivals whenever we co-operate.

So I can envisage us having a strong case but the case looking compelling from the AC's point of view at the same time, hence this apparent slightly bemusing position we are in at the moment where everyone is confident.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I hope no one here is suggesting dishonesty as a policy.

In what respect?

 

[KS55]

In what respect?

It was just the wording that the Sheik could "rustle up something"

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

It was just the wording that the Sheik could "rustle up something"

He might be a dab hand with a biryani.

 

[seafordblue]

I think the audited accounts are the irrefutable evidence but yes bank statements are pretty key too.

Surely our accounts will show the relevant Income revenue from Etihad Airways and no more. It is how Etihad funded the income they paid to City that is more critical. So, would't the audited accounts of Etihad Airways be more appropriate towards our defence?

 

[slbsn]

Surely our accounts will show the relevant Income revenue from Etihad Airways and no more. It is how Etihad funded the income they paid to City that is more critical. So, would't the audited accounts of Etihad Airways be more appropriate towards our defence?

Audit evidence will have wanted to see the payments relating to that contract came into the company and the legal contract. Where Etihad get the cash from is not City's auditor's concern assuming the legal contract and obligation is clear. Remember, in any event consideration of each of the sponsor contracts was part of the settlement in 2014.

 

[Centurions]

Audit evidence will have wanted to see the payments relating to that contract came into the company and the legal contract. Where Etihad get the cash from is not City's auditor's concern assuming the legal contract and obligation is clear. Remember, in any event consideration of each of the sponsor contracts was part of the settlement in 2014.

Exactly, and it's not like we're being used as a conduit for money laundering for instance. Now that really would get a football club into deep water.

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

I hope no one here is suggesting dishonesty as a policy.

Why not? It seems to work just fine in politics, journalism and religion.

 

[bluemanchester]

Cheers.

I suspect the core of UEFA's case is "look at the documents we have, we do not have every relevant document (because City did not provide them) but we do know City have mislead UEFA so the Settlement Agreement is not binding and time limits in the rules don't apply. If City had not mislead UEFA, UEFA would have sanctioned City more severely in 2014 and within the relevant time limits. City should not benefit from their own deception and concealment. The punishment itself is easily proportionate."

I realise at this moment we are all going round in circles with what we know and hoping we will be proved right. I have read todays posts concerning the accounts but I have not seen mentioned the open skies evidence, in America, of where Etihad got their funding from which has been posted many pages back or am I missing something and it is of no value to City at CAS.

 

[mike1923]

Surely our accounts will show the relevant Income revenue from Etihad Airways and no more. It is how Etihad funded the income they paid to City that is more critical. So, would't the audited accounts of Etihad Airways be more appropriate towards our defence?

can you imagine the conversation?

UEFA: ‘we need to see your accounts’
Etihad: ‘looooooooooool. No you don’t, goodbye’

 

[Fred_Quimby]

can you imagine the conversation?

UEFA: ‘we need to see your accounts’
Etihad: ‘looooooooooool. No you don’t, goodbye’

Aren't audited accounts in the public domain for companies like Etihad?

 

[slbsn]

I realise at this moment we are all going round in circles with what we know and hoping we will be proved right. I have read todays posts concerning the accounts but I have not seen mentioned the open skies evidence, in America, of where Etihad got their funding from which has been posted many pages back or am I missing something and it is of no value to City at CAS.

Its irrelevant