CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

bobbyowenquiff said:
The Der Spiegl emails were nothing to do with anything being artificially inflated. The figures for the Etihad sponsorship were accepted as "fair value" by all parties. Spiegl claimed that the emails implied City had received money directly from the Abu Dhabi Executive instead of directly from Etihad itself. Of course Etihad is a state-funded organisation (like Emirates, Saudi Telecom etc). If the Exec sent money to Etihad (to bail out its debts) and then later Etihad sent the money to City then are no problems with any FFP rules. But the emails were vague and out of context and did not prove anything at all. Some of them pre-dated FFP and at least one was fabricated by two mails being merged into one. In a sense the whole thing is just semantics.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself correctly when I say inflated I only mean in that the emails where which reported to show money coming from our owner and in the eyes of the Media rival clubs and UEFA and our enemies inflated because of the extra money. I think later on in my post I explained it is not inflated as such I will explain again below

Yet legally it’s not inflated or related the two are very closely legally and logically linked. If it’s not related it cannot be inflated even if the money comes from the owner

So my question is let’s say they find proof the money came from our owner and was in there eyes inflated so what they cannot get us for it. Though maybe they would get us for not reporting it properly
 
Corky said:
Golf clubs ban you for putting your score card in the wrong box, after watching you do it and saying nothing.

If it is over the Mancini stuff the taxman would have had a look, as in the Harry Redknapp case, and the PL wouldn't pursue until any criminal case had ended. So it must pass the tax man's strict liability test. Therefore I doubt it is the Mancini wages allegations.
Click to expand...
I think the mancini allegations pre-date ffp anyway
 
WRicko said:
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself correctly when I say inflated I only mean in that the emails where which reported to show money coming from our owner and in the eyes of the Media rival clubs and UEFA and our enemies inflated because of the extra money. I think later on in my post I explained it is not inflated as such I will explain again below

Yet legally it’s not inflated or related the two are very closely legally and logically linked. If it’s not related it cannot be inflated even if the money comes from the owner

So my question is let’s say they find proof the money came from our owner and was in there eyes inflated so what they cannot get us for it. Though maybe they would get us for not reporting it properly
Click to expand...
It was not extra money. It was money due for the Etihad deal. The issue is who made the payments but the emails do not make it clear.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It was not extra money. It was money due for the Etihad deal. The issue is who made the payments but the emails do not make it clear.
Click to expand...
Der Spiegel presented a very one-sided view of things, picking out an email that suggested the funds were coming from the owner. That was a mistaken view by whoever wrote that email. The evidence presented at CAS made it clear the money came from Etihad, but some of that money was from central Add Dhabi marketing funds. It was not from ADUG though, which was comprehensively proven at CAS.

Graham Wallace's emails were clear that funds had to come from Etihad & Etisalat, be seen to be from those sources and be fully accounted for as coming from those sources.
 
Last edited:
BigOscar said:
It is weird that apparently all the traditional "big" clubs are in staggeringly huge amounts of debts and that's why they wanted the Super League. But no one seems to ask the question of how they got in staggeringly huge amounts of debts if they were not losing money each year and therefore complying with FFP. A real headscratcher that I'm sure the journalists are vigorously looking in to
Click to expand...
The short answer is that they borrowed the money which would be part of the balance sheet, rather than the P&L and would, therefore, not be subject to ffp. Any interest paid would be on the P&L, but not the capital sum.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.

On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).

We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.

What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.
Click to expand...

thanks PB.

its good to hear something like this wihtout fretting what the PL have against us
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It was not extra money. It was money due for the Etihad deal. The issue is who made the payments but the emails do not make it clear.
Click to expand...
Can you stop trying to pick an argument I fully understand the issue I fully understand Etihad owes us the money. The point is any money that is coming from or seen as coming from our owner is always going to be seen as inflated or extra etc by UEFA the premier league rival fans the media etc to explain that I have to use those terms even if it’s not actually true legally etc
 
Asa's left peg said:
Welcome to the forum <.*.>: hope I got your name right.


Which galaxy are you from?
Click to expand...
(I think our owners would agree 100% with him, but they want to rise above it with dignity and business intelligence, it is them getting abused so if they are okay with it, i will try to emulate them.
 
WRicko said:
Can you stop trying to pick an argument I fully understand the issue I fully understand Etihad owes us the money. The point is any money that is coming from or seen as coming from our owner is always going to be seen as inflated or extra etc by UEFA the premier league rival fans the media etc to explain that I have to use those terms even if it’s not actually true legally etc
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s starting an argument, he’s just correcting you bud

To put it simply, no money is coming from our owner regardless of what you may read in the press my friend

The Pl have exactly the same evidence against us as UEFA had about owner investment coming from ADUG to Etihad, which is absolutely none whatsoever as it has already been proven didn’t happen

I think you’re worried about nothing mate :)
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Der Spiegel presented a very one-sided view of things, picking out an email that suggested the funds were coming from the owner. That was a mistaken view by whoever wrote that email. The evidence presented at CAS made it clear the money came from Etihad, but some of that money was from central Add Dhabi marketing funds. It was not from ADUG though, which was comprehensively proven at CAS.

Graham Wallace's emails were clear that funds had to come from Etihad & Etisalat, be seen to be from those sources and be fully accounted for as coming from those sources.
Click to expand...
Just a quick question but, if you’re not allowed ‘owner investment’ why are you allowed to ‘loan’ a club £1.5 billion and then just right it off?
 
No mention or transparency about where the purchase cash is going nor the fees involved. A nice little earner for someone.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Just a quick question but, if you’re not allowed ‘owner investment’ why are you allowed to ‘loan’ a club £1.5 billion and then just right it off?
Click to expand...
An owner can put in as much money as they like. But it's not classed as revenue, which can be spent on players and other operating expenses. Sheikh Mansour can give us £1bn in cash but we can only spend what we earn from TV, tickets and the various forms of commercial income.

Owners can cover limited losses (currently €30m over any 3 year period, which is due to increase to €60m from 2024. They can also sponsor clubs but only if that's in line with what an unconnected source would have paid.

The whole premise of UEFA's case against us was that the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships were simply a device allowing Sheikh Mansour to shovel extra cash in. When this was challenged at CAS, it was shown that (a) the sponsorships met the fair value test and (b) in any case, the additional cash hadn't come from ADUG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top