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

[slbsn]

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

Yes for UK companies. Not for Etihad. And the working papers aren't public

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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

Does this then lead to the question "What else might Uefa have, as the Spiegel stuff doesn't look very strong?"

 

[Bodicoteblue]

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.

Interesting!
I wonder if you or any other contributor to this fine thread knows of any persistent and convicted money launderers who may be associating themselves with any high profile football clubs in England by, for example, having their company logos splashed all over club shirts and stadium.
Surely this kind of thing would not be allowed.
If it is , we should be told!

 

[nmc]

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.

Could there be a scenario where the entry of sponsorship monies into City’s accounts looks fine, the exit of monies from Etihad accounts look fine but UEFA claim on the basis of a leaked emails that Etihad got the funds from our owner and assert our guilt... not for illegal accounting but for circumventing FFP ?

 

[slbsn]

Could there be a scenario where the entry of sponsorship monies into City’s accounts looks fine, the exit of monies from Etihad accounts look fine but UEFA claim on the basis of a leaked emails that Etihad got the funds from our owner and assert our guilt... not for illegal accounting but for circumventing FFP ?

I think that is pretty much their claim. But its nonsensical in law and accounting so surely has to fail.

 

[nmc]

I think that is pretty much their claim. But its nonsensical in law and accounting so surely has to fail.

How could it get this far?

 

[Jazzman]

How could it get this far?

Even if they loose at CAS damage has been done. If damage was their purpose they have already succeeded.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?

 

[JASR]

Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?

10 year cup ban (FA, LC, CL), Demotion to Northern League, squad restriction to 16, only allowed players under 18 and over 36, transfer budget limited to £1 per annum .... that sort of thing

 

[OccupiedPalestineBlues]

Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?

I voted 'other' and I have in mind that CAS is not a court of 'law' it's a court of arbitration so it's brief is limited to assessing whether the rules of the organisation have been followed. Despite the oft used terminology in this thread, they don't find guilt or innocence and they don't give a hoot if the organisations rules are contrary to European Law, because that's not what they do.
I think that CAS may find that the case against City is fairly brought under the competition rules and thus that City are likely to need to take this matter to the European Court of Justice.
This doesn't worry me because the punishment will be suspended while the case is heard and I truly believe that the whole FFP 'anti-competition shebang will collapse if tested under the law.

Just my take on it.

 

[mike1923]

How could it get this far?

because it is up to this point UEFAs investigation and they think they can do whatever they want, regardless of whether their ‘evidence’ is sufficient or not

 

[Norbiton]

Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?

I voted "Other" purely on the basis that CAS is an arbitration body and some sort of stitched up compromise still seems to me quite likely either before or after next week's hearing. Something which lifts the ban but falls short of complete exoneration, such as an acceptance that City have committed no breaches of FFP other than those covered in the 2014 settlement but were less than fully cooperative in the recent investigation.

 

[levets]

Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?

I think it will go to either another review post CAS, or a full court hearing.

 

[nmc]

Even if they loose at CAS damage has been done. If damage was their purpose they have already succeeded.

Totally get that but a crushing defeat for UEFA would see the members of the AC under huge pressure... would they survive?

 

[chocovla]

because it is up to this point UEFAs investigation and they think they can do whatever they want, regardless of whether their ‘evidence’ is sufficient or not

But why would a large organization like UEFA build up a complete semi fabricated case, handing out a very harsh punishment if they very well know it wouldn't pass CAS? What is there to win for them? Except for damaging City's reputation perhaps, but we weren't exactly the most popular kids in class anyway. I simply cannot see what is there for them to gain by doing this, knowing it's all futile.Therefore I expect them to have at least more than a couple of stolen mails from a media article.

 

[Gazza]

Those who have voted "Other"
What have you in mind?

I voted 'other' purely to see how the poll was leaning - you don't vote, you can't see.

 

[blueinsa]

I've gone worst case, 2 year ban upheld.

Genuinely think we are up against a mafia here that will not stop until they have completely fucked us over.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

There's also an email referred to in the Der Spiegel materials and sent from City's CFO to Simon Pearce asking which model applies out of two the sender cites for the flow of the Etihad sponsorship funds. Both of these involve an entity or individual the sender names 'ADUG Shareholder', and given that the sole shareholder of ADUG is Sheikh Mansour then this does make it sound as though Mansour is routing money into City via the Etihad sponsorship.

But this email gives rise to plenty of questions, not least how Pearce replied. Der Spiegel doesn't quote it and yet, without seeing what it says, it's impossible to offer a proper interpretation of the original email.

Then there's the fact that the money is shown in City's accounts (one presumes) as coming from Etihad in relation to a contract we know MCFC entered into with Etihad for a sponsorship fee acknowledged by UEFA's expert assessors as representing a fair value, and we know that City have performed their obligations under the contract (e.g. Etihad has been the shirt sponsor throughout the term of the contract). So if ADUG has routed shareholder funds via Etihad, this has been at the expense of revenue under a legitimate and fairly valued sponsorship contract, meaning there's no financial benefit to the club in this arrangement, just to Etihad.

In this event, surely any breach (and the evidence of one is very flimsy) is purely technical. The idea that it should merit a two-year ban seems laughable, really - unless there's more evidence we don't know about.

Thanks, P, that is very helpful because the longer this goes on and the more I think of it the flimsier the case against City seems to get. I do struggle to see how emails can be held to prove anything because they not in any way a legally binding statement of what was actually done and they're not even (as this makes obvious) a secure communication. In this case as well there seems a clear conflict between emails on the one hand and City's accounts and Etihad's statement on the other. I struggle to see what evidence UEFA can have which trumps ours. Any suggestions?!

 

[nmc]

But why would a large organization like UEFA build up a complete semi fabricated case, handing out a very harsh punishment if they very well know it wouldn't pass CAS? What is there to win for them? Except for damaging City's reputation perhaps, but we weren't exactly the most popular kids in class anyway. I simply cannot see what is there for them to gain by doing this, knowing it's all futile.Therefore I expect them to have at least more than a couple of stolen mails from a media article.

As I’ve said before powerful individuals and powerful organisations when they lose their sense of perspective or get overly obsessed with something - Can do some crazy whacky stuff. I point you in the direction of the quacks and conspiracy theorists presently having more influence in the White House than established scientists !

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Not just the G14. Many clubs will have stuck their oar in - this is a competitive, commercial industry. But that pressure does not equate to convincing the AC of UEFA to sanction City with the flimsiest of cases that they know will be appealed at CAS (and beyond if need be). That makes no sense. The AC must, in my view, believe they have at least an arguable case.

These are concerns which have been worrying me increasingly as the hearing draws nearer. The accountants have convinced me that the only possible breaches of FFP in our accounts for the relevant period are so minor if they are breaches at all. The only emails we know of are not even wafer thin. And yet UEFA have accused City of "serious breaches" deserving of a two year ban and a large fine. Misleading the auditors and presenting fraudulent accounts is certainly serious enough and would make it difficult for the club to cooperate with the inquiry or accept the verdict. It would probably open the club up to legal sanction if proven. What I can't imagine, however, is what evidence UEFA could possibly have which could prove anything like this, and, if they are other emails how could they establish their provenance and reliability. Then we have the confidence of Khaldoon and Sorriano, which appears too genuine and durable to be put on.