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

[slbsn]

Do CAS have the authority to look at Etihad's accounts?

No. But they can see City's contract with Etihad. And could ask to see the bank statements that showed the inflows related to it.

 

[hihosilva]

No. But they can see City's contract with Etihad. And could ask to see the bank statements that showed the inflows related to it.

But surely only Citys bank account. This money was supposedly paid directly from Mansour.

 

[slbsn]

But surely only Citys bank account. This money was supposedly paid directly from Mansour.

Yes City's bank statements. The Auditors would have reviewed them to and would have need to get comfortable on similar issues.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I don’t understand why adug would need to channel money through etihad.
Etihad airlines, is as far as I know, a state owned enterprise and is therefore open to receiving state subsidies, if needed, to meet their business and contractual obligations, so if they fell short of money to meet their deal with City, then the government of Abu Dhabi ( which as we all know does not own us) can legitimately supply those funds, no matter how much the US airlines squeal and cry foul.

Indeed, that’s what makes the email asking for clarification as to the best route for ADUG to channel money into the club (ie via Etihad), seem so daft

 

[feedthegoat]

But surely only Citys bank account. This money was supposedly paid directly from Mansour.

The money will have been paid in full by Etihad, where the source of the funds originally came from is not something that would be in our accounts.
It seems likely money was paid to Etihad to subsidise a large part of that contract.
Does that break FFP? in spirit i would say yes it does but will a court find it breaks the FFP rules is a bit of a grey area.

 

[FrankSwift1]

Reading these posts I can't help feeling that it's very difficult for UEFA to prove their case. But then I keep thinking maybe its confirmation bias.

So if we can produce documentation showing the flow of money into our accounts and this matches the Etihad contract that was deemed fair value. How can UEFA prove* in the balance of probabilities that the money came from our owners? (even if it did)

*Do UEFA have to prove the case in balance of probability or do we?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I can imagine it now:
'Hi is that Etihad, its UEFA here could we kindly have a audit of your accounts'?
'Hi UEFA, get fucked, regards Etihad'.

All well and good, but we are trying to discredit those emails, and if our owners haven’t been channeling money into the club via Etihad, then what better way to prove it....

 

[John Wayne]

Yes City's bank statements. The Auditors would have reviewed them to and would have need to get comfortable on similar issues.

Isn't all of this irrelevant given that action was brought against City a) over matters previously settled, and b) after UEFA's own statute of limitations had been reached?

 

[Gazza]

So on Thursday let's have a "clap for UEFA day" - you know you can trust them to protect the beautiful game.

If you're referring to the STD then I'm all for it.

 

[Phil1]

Reading these posts I can't help feeling that it's very difficult for UEFA to prove their case. But then I keep thinking maybe its confirmation bias.

So if we can produce documentation showing the flow of money into our accounts and this matches the Etihad contract that was deemed fair value. How can UEFA prove* in the balance of probabilities that the money came from our owners? (even if it did)

*Do UEFA have to prove the case in balance of probability or do we?

Reading these posts I’m still none the wiser about what the fucks going on as I was a couple of years ago! Haha!
I tend to take in what some of our more knowledgeable members on here post but even they seem to contradict each other so my stance now is to not think about it and just hope that the club have been honest with us and we’re exonerated in full.
Tbh, if found guilty and it comes out that my faith in the top brass has been severely misplaced then I doubt I’d be able to muster up the effort to get behind them again, regardless of all the good they have done.
As it stands they have my full support until a time comes when that support becomes unjustifiable.
I really hope that’s not a decision I ever have to make.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

The money will have been paid in full by Etihad, where the source of the funds originally came from is not something that would be in our accounts.
It seems likely money was paid to Etihad to subsidise a large part of that contract.
Does that break FFP? in spirit i would say yes it does but will a court find it breaks the FFP rules is a bit of a grey area.

I know it’s probably been explained to me already and I lack the financial savvy to understand it, but this just seems to be at the heart of everything to me, and everything else about City having bona fide accounts, etc, etc, is just flim flam.
Did Sheikh Mansour directly fund Etihad out of his own pocket with a view to Etihad then returning that money to City’s coffers as sponsorship? And if so, would that action constitute a breach of FFP under the broad church of owner investment? Somebody help me please.....!

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Although @projectriver has said many times an agreed settlement is possible before, during or even after the hearing you have to assume that this won't happen now? Maybe there were discussions and no agreement could be reached before the CAS hearing started (& after the reported Ceferin attempts earlier) but now it really is down to the judgement.

 

[hihosilva]

The money will have been paid in full by Etihad, where the source of the funds originally came from is not something that would be in our accounts.
It seems likely money was paid to Etihad to subsidise a large part of that contract.
Does that break FFP? in spirit i would say yes it does but will a court find it breaks the FFP rules is a bit of a grey area.

This goes back to my original point. If CAS cannot access Etihads accounts & all UEFA have is a couple of hacked emails to go on then surely it has to be thrown out.

 

[slbsn]

Isn't all of this irrelevant given that action was brought against City a) over matters previously settled, and b) after UEFA's own statute of limitations had been reached?

I am speaking blind but those are just 2 of the hurdles. Beyond that UEFA have to make good serious allegations including, most likely, that our audited accounts are false on the basis of a few pre-contractual emails from Simon Pearce

 

[hihosilva]

I am speaking blind but those are just 2 of the hurdles. Beyond that UEFA have to make good serious allegations including, most likely, that our audited accounts are false on the basis of a few pre-contractual emails from Simon Pearce

If emails could easily be hacked then who's to say that a hacker sent the emails.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Reading these posts I’m still none the wiser about what the fucks going on as I was a couple of years ago! Haha!
I tend to take in what some of our more knowledgeable members on here post but even they seem to contradict each other so my stance now is to not think about it and just hope that the club have been honest with us and we’re exonerated in full.
Tbh, if found guilty and it comes out that my faith in the top brass has been severely misplaced then I doubt I’d be able to muster up the effort to get behind them again, regardless of all the good they have done.
As it stands they have my full support until a time comes when that support becomes unjustifiable.
I really hope that’s not a decision I ever have to make.

The reason you haven't got a clue what's going on is because this thread is full of fucking know it alls bringing up millions of what ifs and some people are just making up stuff that's not even related, you can see from projectrivers responces he's getting pissed of by all the nonsense being asked by the 2000 armchair lawyers on bluemoon, I haven't got a fucking clue what is going on, but I'll adm,it that and trawl through this clogged up thread until we have a final settlement, even some of our resident experts are getting put right,
Typical bluemoon a whole lot of dick waving ,off to the BLM thread to get some peace and quiet haha

 

[slbsn]

If emails could easily be hacked then who's to say that a hacker sent the emails.

The emails are obviously real and true. But will obviously only be a partial view of the picture.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think I see your point. Plus if the money comes indirectly in that ADUG pay Etihad and Etihad pay City how do you prove beyond doubt that it’s the same money? If I give you £10 and you give me £10 back a week later who is to say the two transactions are related? It’s surely like saying nobody at City can ever use an Etihad plane because the ticket money has then been used to finance Etihad’s sponsorship of City. If we have paid Etihad a sum of money I suppose it could be asked what is was for but I imagine Etihad don’t have to say if they don’t want.

It’s no surprise it’s a murky area who would have thought you had to explain investment in your own company. I imagine in most industries investment in your own company is fine if the money is obtained legally.

Erk, hadn't thought about that. Blimey.

 

[CatMan]

The reason you haven't got a clue what's going on is because this thread is full of fucking know it alls bringing up millions of what ifs and some people are just making up stuff that's not even related, you can see from projectrivers responces he's getting pissed of by all the nonsense being asked by the 2000 armchair lawyers on bluemoon, I haven't got a fucking clue what is going on, but I'll adm,it that and trawl through this clogged up thread until we have a final settlement, even some of our resident experts are getting put right,
Typical bluemoon a whole lot of dick waving ,off to the BLM thread to get some peace and quiet haha

I was just about to write that very post! It follows that it's no surprise how none of the forums experts are representing us at CAS

 

[John Wayne]

I am speaking blind but those are just 2 of the hurdles. Beyond that UEFA have to make good serious allegations including, most likely, that our audited accounts are false on the basis of a few pre-contractual emails from Simon Pearce

I have thought about this at great length and cannot think of any other evidence that UEFA would have beyond those emails. UEFA would have had full disclosure of our audited accounts for the period in question. In addition, Der Spiegel would have published the most incriminating evidence. I cannot see how the emails could have been corroborated without City's cooperation. The sourcing of capital to Etihad is not something that UEFA can investigate. I really do think that UEFA only has Simon Pearce's emails as they appear in Der Spiegel and that the "irrefutable proof" of which City speak is that ADUG were not involved in assisting Etihad in meeting its contractual obligations.