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

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I don't see your point. “The owner has not put any money into the club that has not been properly declared.” This seems a clear statement and can also be used to express the corollary: what hasn't been declared has not been put into the club. The accounts appear to be the "proper" record and it seems impossible that an email posing a question can be held to supersede these accounts. Unless of course City forwarded to UEFA, by mistake, an email saying, in reply, that Sheikh Mansour had agreed to an improper payment to City, not to be recorded in the books, of monies which should come from Etihad and the accounts should be falsified to show nothing irregular happened! Der Spiegel would, of course know nothing about it and City would have set Sorriano to lie through his teeth. Or maybe City have a genuine set of accounts which got mixed up and sent to UEFA.

And yet the AC appears to have done just that......

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The Soriano quote is from the in-house interview he did a few days after the 2 year ban was announced. Full transcript of the interview are here.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-news-ferran-ban-17776545


The statement was fully approved by City lawyers and I think is the last official statement from the club. We all heard it at the time but good to be reminded of the key-points:

• allegations are not true, simply not true
• the owner has not put any money into the club that has not been properly declared
• we did cooperate with the process, we delivered a long list of documents and support that we believe is irrefutable evidence
• IC relied more on out of context stolen emails than all the other evidence we provided
• this seems to be less about justice and more about politics
• we went to CAS mid process because it was clear we weren;t having a fair process and speciifcally about the leaks
• Th experience with IC has been negative for us....it is also negative for them (UEFA). UEFA is much bigger than this FFP Chamber

A very neat summary of City's defence. It's all in the public domain and yet, as far as I can see, not one person in the media has included City's position in any of the preview articles which have mostly been twisted against our ownership. It beggars belief really. A lot of them included the lying anonymous quote saying: "City have no evidence at all." Rob Harris claimed City's case hinged on the fact the emails were stolen. This is what fake news is about. It's not just about false statements it's about omitting key elements of a story to present a distorted view of events.

 

[manimanc]

I’ve got a bad feeling today.

What is it indegestion or heartburn?

 

[HelloCity]

What is it indegestion or heartburn?

A tremor in the force.

 

[Groke]

What is it indegestion or heartburn?

Injedigestion

 

[slbsn]

Do those Der Spiegel emails not constitute that evidence? They certainly seem to have been the primary driver for the AC. The thing I cannot get my head around is that we keep saying that our audited accounts somehow trump those emails, but our audited accounts do not address the key ‘prosecution’ issue, which is that (allegedly) Sheikh Mansour put his own money into Etihad, which in turn was fed back to City under the guise of sponsorship.....

I would be arguing they absolutely address that. a) the money actually came into the right company b) (presumably) the monies related to a contract between the right company and Etihad c) if a and b are true (and they should have been checked in the audit) then how Etihad raised those funds is not relevant because the Etihad deal even if a related party was at fair value.

In any event those emails in themselves are far from sufficient to support an inference that the accounts and contracts themselves are wrong or false.

 

[manimanc]

A tremor in the force.

Ah you've got wind.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Do those Der Spiegel emails not constitute that evidence? They certainly seem to have been the primary driver for the AC. The thing I cannot get my head around is that we keep saying that our audited accounts somehow trump those emails, but our audited accounts do not address the key ‘prosecution’ issue, which is that (allegedly) Sheikh Mansour put his own money into Etihad, which in turn was fed back to City under the guise of sponsorship.....

Possibly they do. We don't know. But if so, to use my speeding analogy, it's a bit like the police saying they thought the saw you going too fast last week because you'd already been caught speeding twice a couple of years ago. Therefore the probability is you were speeding last week.

I doubt City would be relying on their audited accounts alone. For the evidence to be "irrefutable" in my view, it's have to show a clear audit trail of the money from Etihad into City, probably backed up by Abu dhabi saying that they covered the sponsorship (which the 'HH will arrange..." email seems to support.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I’ve got a bad feeling today.

Are your high heels a bit tight?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I would be arguing they absolutely address that. a) the money actually came into the right company b) (presumably) the monies related to a contract between the right company and Etihad c) if a and b are true (and they should have been checked in the audit) then how Etihad raised those funds is not relevant because the Etihad deal even if a related party was at fair value.

In any event those emails in themselves are far from sufficient to support an inference that the accounts and contracts themselves are wrong or false.

Well that’s me done and dusted. I thought that having an owner effectively self-fund by pumping money into a sponsor’s account with a view to it being fed back to you, was completely contrary to FFP guidelines, and formed the whole basis for the 2 year ban. If it isn’t an issue, then UEFA would appear to have based their ban on sweet Fanny Adams, and therefore we should win our case

 

[slbsn]

Well that’s me done and dusted. I thought that having an owner effectively self-fund by pumping money into a sponsor’s account with a view to it being fed back to you, was completely contrary to FFP guidelines, and formed the whole basis for the 2 year ban. If it isn’t an issue, then UEFA would appear to have based their ban on sweet Fanny Adams, and therefore we should win our case

I deal with this in Part 2 of the Seeing the Wood for the FFPs articles. https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The part that makes me think City will be cleared is that Der Speigal or others have blacked out parts of the emails. If the blacked out parts would prove beyond doubt that City did what they are accused of they would have been printed in full, of that I have no doubt.

That, or perhaps they were account numbers or phone details?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I would be arguing they absolutely address that. a) the money actually came into the right company b) (presumably) the monies related to a contract between the right company and Etihad c) if a and b are true (and they should have been checked in the audit) then how Etihad raised those funds is not relevant because the Etihad deal even if a related party was at fair value.

In any event those emails in themselves are far from sufficient to support an inference that the accounts and contracts themselves are wrong or false.

I'd argue that, in a situation where things will be decided on the balance of probabilities, it is very relevant. If UEFA can show, on the balance of probablities, those additional funds came solely from ADUG, directly or via Etihad, then I'd say they probably have us bang to rights. It would be disguised owner investment and against FFP rules, unless Etihad was declared by us to be a related party and the sponsorship contract as a whole was deemed to be at fair market value.

If, on the other hand, we can show to the satisfaction of the arbitration panel that the funds never touched ADUG or, if they did, it was only indirectly as a conduit from ADEC, then I'd say we were in the clear.

 

[slbsn]

I'd argue that, in a situation where things will be decided on the balance of probabilities, it is very relevant. If UEFA can show, on the balance of probablities, those additional funds came solely from ADUG, directly or via Etihad, then I'd say they probably have us bang to rights. It would be disguised owner investment and against FFP rules, unless Etihad was declared by us to be a related party and the sponsorship contract as a whole was deemed to be at fair market value.

If, on the other hand, we can show to the satisfaction of the arbitration panel that the funds never touched ADUG or, if they did, it was only indirectly as a conduit from ADEC, then I'd say we were in the clear.

We've been over this multiple times. You are conflating cash with the legal and audit position. There is obviously a contract between City and Etihad. That presumably has obligations on Etihad (and Etihad alone) to settle. Where that cash comes from to satisfy the legal obligations of Etihad is not City's concern. Then there is the question of who Etihad are and whether they are related party. If they are related is the contract deemed at fair value or does it need to be adjusted. So there is no disguise. It is either related and fair valued (as it was in 2014) or its not related in which case the contract is the only important factor. In any event, this was one of the precise matters covered in 2014.

This is what Conn was briefed in Jan 2020:

"In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline.

City have strenuously rejected the conclusion that Etihad or the other two companies are related to City under the rules, arguing Uefa needed to show Mansour had substantial influence over their management, not just that he was the chairman of the funds owning them.

Uefa is understood to have asked specialist sponsorship consultants to consider whether the money being paid to City by the Abu Dhabi companies was “fair value”. The Etihad deal is thought not to have been considered too excessive."

In other words, it was moot in the end because a) City breached by a mile and b) it was settled.

It is therefore not relevant.

 

[bluemanchester]

That, or perhaps they were account numbers or phone details?

I will see if I can find the e mails somewhere and see if it looks like a number is blacked out as when that happens its usually preceded by " here are the details" or similar. Anyway we will soon know, just when do we start biting our nails!

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

That, or perhaps they were account numbers or phone details?

the irony of blacking out personal details on stolen emails...

 

[SWP's back]

I would think that it would all depend on whether UEFA will drop all the charges. They would also after drop any impending charges a well. I just don't think that the club would except this. as it does make us look guilty.

If UEFA insist that we have to pay the fine for them dropping the 2yr ban. Then maybe the club would have to look at it. I just can't see that happening. It is about time that some club took that big bully that is called UEFA and took them to court. They cannot be the judge and the jury all at the same time.

Perhaps sue them for £50m?

 

[SWP's back]

That's likely the case here too - the idea that City did nothing wrong at all, is wishful thinking. Even if CAS finds for City, it is not an "exoneration" necessarily.

If Mansour didn’t send the money to City then City have done nothing wrong. So long as it arrived in the account from Etihad then there’s no case.

 

[M18CTID]

Do those Der Spiegel emails not constitute that evidence? They certainly seem to have been the primary driver for the AC. The thing I cannot get my head around is that we keep saying that our audited accounts somehow trump those emails, but our audited accounts do not address the key ‘prosecution’ issue, which is that (allegedly) Sheikh Mansour put his own money into Etihad, which in turn was fed back to City under the guise of sponsorship.....

City did come out with that line on more than one occasion but I think that was before UEFA opened an investigation so there really was no more to say. Since then the club have expanded on that and also said they have “irrefutable evidence” that proves we have done nothing wrong. I doubt this irrefutable evidence is just a copy of our audited accounts. At least, I hope it isn’t. Indeed, without knowing what it is, we do know that there is other evidence regarding where Etihad got their money from to help prop them up and it’s in the public domain - the Open Skies dispute document is available for anyone to peruse and that states ADEC, not ADUG, bailed them out.

 

[domalino]

I will see if I can find the e mails somewhere and see if it looks like a number is blacked out as when that happens its usually preceded by " here are the details" or similar. Anyway we will soon know, just when do we start biting our nails!

I think more likely would be they included messages saying "let's do X" and not included messages from 2 days later saying "Sorry checked with the boss, we can't do X but instead Y will do".

Emails aren't proof of wrongdoing. If you wrote an email saying "let's rob that bank" it's not proof you robbed a bank.