That is the problem as I see it. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with related party transactions in themselves, provided you say in the accounts 'by the way guys, this is a related party transaction.' That then means the PL/UEFA can make adjustments to the amount actually received in their notional assessment of whether we cross the FFP threshold.
That isn't what's being alleged, as I understand it. What's being said is that our accounts do not provide a true and fair view of our financial circumstances. That is not an allegation that we've laid our cards on the table, but under PL rules the amount we are claiming as sponsorship should be adjusted because they think Etihad (say) have paid too much. This is an allegation that the accounts are bent.
For my part, I don't see how they can seriously argue that the sponsorship revenues were disguised equity investments if the sponsoring company's audited accounts marry up with the receiving company's audited accounts - which they do - UNLESS they have some first hand evidence that Etihad was in on this conspiracy as well, eg someone saying "I was in the meeting where Khaldoon told the accountants at Etihad and City that we needed to disguise the funding coming from Sheikh Mansour to make it look like commercial sponsorship."
If they have nothing more than the Der Spiegel emails, I think this is going nowhere.
There are other charges that do not relate to the general accusation that our accounts do not give a true and fair view of our financial circumstances, but this is the most serious of the charges we face, and i think it is no more likely to succeed than at CAS.
