nmc
Well-Known Member
The FFP rule is that you can only spend what you earn via normal revenue. SM could have lent us billions but we couldn't spend it. The whole premise of the UEFA and PL cases was that he'd given us money disguised as revenue.
But the problem with UEFA's argument (and presumably the PL's) is that they accepted Etihad's sponsorship was broadly fair value. CAS certainly agreed with that.
Part of the PL's case will probably be around not declaring Etihad as a related party. That's not going to wash I suspect and even if it did, the central fact is that the Etihad sponsorship was fair value, whether Etihad is or isn't a related party.
And our auditors didn’t see Etihad as a related party either… won’t that be a tough hurdle for the PL to scale retrospectively?
