Now that is my opinion, the only real question is.... did you give me that opinion?
I'd like to think so of course but I don't know. But what I do know is that initially, when the charges were announced just two years ago, I thought that these were very serious issues. After a few days, when I'd thought about them more and gone back through all the source documentation, I was much more relaxed.
In the last 3 months or so, after the APT case and re-reading the CAS verdict, my view is what I expressed and that you responded to. I think that what looked like the most serious potential issue is actually nothing.
As I've said (and Stefan doesn't agree with, which is fine) I reckon the sponsorship stuff mainly boils down to the issue of whether Etihad & Etisalat are related parties that we should have disclosed in the published accounts. That was mentioned in the CAS verdict and appears to have been the driver in the APT rules that we're challenging.
The fact that the Etihad sponsorship was deemed fair value by CAS (and also by UEFA back in 2014) means that this is unlikely to be successfully challenged by the PL, alongside the issue of it being disguised equity investment. I can't see any way those outcomes could be disputed by an independent panel. So if the sponsorship was fair value, and properly accounted for, what's left? Related parties is the answer.
And if it was fair value and properly accounted for, what difference would it make if Etihad & Etisalat were related parties? None, other than we and our auditors would be judged as failing to recognise them as such. That would make zero difference to our ability to spend money and gain sporting advantage, but it would force us to declare the value of the contract, plus we'd be guilty of a technical accounting issue. So there could be no points deduction on that basis, and that's nearly half the charges.
I spent the afternoon with a journalist before the Chelsea game. He writes for the very prestigious New Yorker magazine (NOT the NY Times) and he's an Arsenal season ticket holder. So I went into this a bit nervous, given the mentality of Arsenal fans. But even he said the charges appeared to be theatre, rather than having any substance. David Conn, whose tune changed completely once the CAS verdict came out (probably under editorial orders) dismissed the original UEFA charges as not having any substance. And he was quite right.
Since that initial shock two years ago the scales have dropped from my eyes more and more. These charges are baseless and completely without substance.
