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

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

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.

I get that, but what would be gained by the sheik leading us a billion and, therefore, why is Abramovic in the cart for £1.5B?

 

[halfcenturyup]

How much do you think we'll get for Jihad? Or are we sending him on loan to Stoke?

Sun Ji Had, now he was a player.

 

[KS55]

Nice to see Prince has joined us posthumously.

 

[KS55]

I get that, but what would be gained by the sheik leading us a billion and, therefore, why is Abramovic in the cart for £1.5B?

He lent Chelsea most of that before ffp. So they were able to spend it on players etc. It was that which caused UEFA to panic and try to stop us with ffp. They failed.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I get that, but what would be gained by the sheik leading us a billion and, therefore, why is Abramovic in the cart for £1.5B?

I think it's mostly just a method of business, rather than one being a gain, and is presumably because a loan is a distinct issue and can be nominally reclaimed into £££, but a gift to the club would disappear in the business assets.

The sheikh converted his input to equity. Abramovich didn't, instead keeping it as a 0% loan.
It may be a cultural thing about debt, others may know more about that.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I get that, but what would be gained by the sheik leading us a billion and, therefore, why is Abramovic in the cart for £1.5B?

A loan potentially makes sense if we want to spend the money on infrastructure, for example, building a new stadium. That's all balance sheet stuff until the stadium is complete, at which point the depreciation becomes an allowable FFP expense.

John Wardle & David Makin lent us money because we didn't generate enough cash to cover our outgoings (although we'd have passed FFP). Or it could be to cover transfer fees (which then get amortised).

As it happens, whenever Sheikh Mansour head out in money, he's done that via equity investment, which means he effectivel buys shares at £1 per share. So if he puts in £100m, he gets 100m shares for that. Again, that's all balance sheet related.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I get that, but what would be gained by the sheik leading us a billion and, therefore, why is Abramovic in the cart for £1.5B?

As KS55 said most was before FFP. A couple of years ago or so there was another £200+mil when they went on a transfer splurge - Havertz etc. Funds mainly needed for cashflow.

The difference with us is that owner inputs have been pretty infrequent in recent years. Last big input was January 18 when we bought Laporte. We had to pay the full transfer value up front due the release clause but for FFP purposes the transfer fee accounted for under the length of the contract with amortisation.
We wouldn't have the cashflow at that time to pay the full amount up front. So the Sheikh coughed up. Difference was that the input was converted into shares/equity - so no debt.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I think it's mostly just a method of business, rather than one being a gain, and is presumably because a loan is a distinct issue and can be nominally reclaimed into £££, but a gift to the club would disappear in the business assets.

The sheikh converted his input to equity. Abramovich didn't, instead keeping it as a 0% loan.
It may be a cultural thing about debt, others may know more about that.

You mean cultural with the Sheikh?

If so we do use "debt" including a v large drawdown facility. Another example is when we signed up for the Puma deal we almost simultaneously took out a facility secured on incoming sponsorship money.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

You mean cultural with the Sheikh?

If so we do use "debt" including a v large drawdown facility. Another example is when we signed up for the Puma deal we almost simultaneously took out a facility secured on incoming sponsorship money.

Yes - whether a 'debt' as a long term plan with no repayment plan is a bad thing.
I think a short-term borrow to a plan may be different.

(I accept this may be drivel - it was just an impression I had).

 

[KS55]

It is standard practice for prem clubs to take a short term loan in the summer to cover transfers when there is little positive cash flow. The loan is usually paid back when the PL pays the first tranche of sponsorship monies to the clubs. (In Sept I think). Loans to cover cash flow are very common in all types of business and need to be distinguished from long term indebtedness.

 

[WRicko]

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 :)

I never said money was coming from our owner or that I was worried
In fact far from worried as you should be able to tell from my posts

 

[Centurions]

I never said money was coming from our owner or that I was worried
In fact far from worried as you should be able to tell from my posts

Don't take this the wrong way bud, but your posts on here have been very hard to interpret. Try reading them a couple of times before hitting the "post" button.

 

[dadnlad]

He lent Chelsea most of that before ffp. So they were able to spend it on players etc. It was that which caused UEFA to panic and try to stop us with ffp. They failed.

weren't chelsea one of the last to sign up to FFP rules ? looks like getting clarification that his loans wont be counted as income
it's a long time ago

 

[HelloCity]

I’m still worried about the PL investigation. Should I be? (@Prestwich_Blue) Mainly because it feels like they’re desperate to try and find absolutely anything they can to try and smear us with.

I do think the desire from the likes of Utd and Liverpool was probably for UEFA to hammer us and then for the PL to do a follow up but the CAS then threw a spanner in the works.

I know CAS covered a lot off but we might be in a position with the PL where there is no room to appeal any charges we feel are unjust or unproven.

 

[Blue Mist]

I’m still worried about the PL investigation. Should I be? (@Prestwich_Blue) Mainly because it feels like they’re desperate to try and find absolutely anything they can to try and smear us with.

I do think the desire from the likes of Utd and Liverpool was probably for UEFA to hammer us and then for the PL to do a follow up but the CAS then threw a spanner in the works.

I know CAS covered a lot off but we might be in a position with the PL where there is no room to appeal any charges we feel are unjust or unproven.

My take on it is this. The PL want to sack it off as there is no case to answer but, they are under pressure to keep it just dangling there in the background. This allows the hacks to continually spew bile to make us look guilty.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Listened to that knob Jordan on talk shite yesterday, he claimed City were guilty the evidence of our guilt is time locked for UEFA and that was why we got off with CAS. We were investigated charged found guilty and punished without evidence, that is why CAS had no choice but to exonerate us, unless Jordan knows differently? so why is the PL different, it is a four pronged attack by our rivals that like UEFA does not have full support or evidence, three of the attacks have been investigated before without charges, the 4th is FFP and on that the PL has even less room for maneuver as the PL was not invitational and in Britain you are innocent until proven guilty, that is before they ask UEFA to unlock the evidence.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

If you think back to the last farcical attempt by uefa to nail us, they couldn’t wait to leak so-called ’evidence’ in the form of dubious emails from a dubious source.
A simple tactic - it really doesn’t matter if the ‘evidence‘ is real or fake, the point is that the existence of said evidence is a guilty verdict in itself.
If this current inquiry had any evidence of wrong-doing by City, it would be leaked and mentioned in every corner of popular media none of which have a track record of sympathy for us.
I think they have no evidence of anything but are instead now just relying on the simple existence of an inquiry to sustain itself as a guilty verdict.
Lapped up by the usual suspects who have never bothered with such tedious tasks as reading a judgment before …errmmm…. passing judgment.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Listened to that knob Jordan on talk shite yesterday, he claimed City were guilty the evidence of our guilt is time locked for UEFA and that was why we got off with CAS. We were investigated charged found guilty and punished without evidence, that is why CAS had no choice but to exonerate us, unless Jordan knows differently? so why is the PL different, it is a four pronged attack by our rivals that like UEFA does not have full support or evidence, three of the attacks have been investigated before without charges, the 4th is FFP and on that the PL has even less room for maneuver as the PL was not invitational and in Britain you are innocent until proven guilty, that is before they ask UEFA to unlock the evidence.

Its different because alleged breaches of Premier League rules have no right of appeal to CAS.
Like being banned at your local golf club for farting in front of the Captain.

 

[Citizen Green]

Couple of pointers re PL Investigation:

- Any charge would see a dispute go before an arbitration panel
- The PL rules are subject to/governed by English Law meaning they have a 6 year period to investigate from making a charge, unless City agree to freeze the clock to allow the PL to investigate.
- Speaking to a someone familiar with these arbitrations/cases, he believes a settlement outside of arbitration could be likely given how difficult a case it is for the PL to pursue, & City tying them up legally/dragging it out
- Clear pressure being applied by our rivals for PL to charge
- City have given the PL all the documents they original requested as per the court order last year.

 

[KS55]

If you think back to the last farcical attempt by uefa to nail us, they couldn’t wait to leak so-called ’evidence’ in the form of dubious emails from a dubious source.
A simple tactic - it really doesn’t matter if the ‘evidence‘ is real or fake, the point is that the existence of said evidence is a guilty verdict in itself.
If this current inquiry had any evidence of wrong-doing by City, it would be leaked and mentioned in every corner of popular media none of which have a track record of sympathy for us.
I think they have no evidence of anything but are instead now just relying on the simple existence of an inquiry to sustain itself as a guilty verdict.
Lapped up by the usual suspects who have never bothered with such tedious tasks as reading a judgment before …errmmm…. passing judgment.

The PL can’t just let it hang there indefinitely. The court would consider that onerous and overbearing. The court has told the PL to get on with it. I guess that the PL would just like to drop it but pressure from Liverpool makes it difficult.