UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[OmgOgs]

Gill was the one who pushed for ffp in premier and it was up and running in no time

In all honesty I dont think this is Gill's doing.
It's more to do with geopolitics really.
Qatar and the UAE are just not liked.

 

[bluesimon]

Question for those in the know:

How would a court look upon evidence derived from an illegal hack/leak?

The reality is that any UEFA process is purely a 'quango' facility rather than being able to enforce the 'law'. If UEFA attempt to enforce any ban, then City will undoubtedly take them to court on the basis that the UEFA decision would have been based on an illegal hack and in any formal court of law, would be entirely inadmisable (spelling?). City make clear on their statement that the emails that have been quoted entirely out of context and irrespective of what those emails might imply what might happen, does not necessarily mean it ended up happening. And UEFA will find it impossible to factually prove anything.
But as UEFA are not a court and therefore will come to their decision based on a bunch of UEFA members sitting around a table and talking shite

 

[cucumberman]

If UEFA even touch a mention of the Der Spiegel leaks, they are officially condoning illegal hacking and illegally obtaining information.

will set a precedent for cyber vigilantes hacking into corporate emails, including those handling state secrets.

 

[stan bowles]

As introduced by that notorious leader of the city cabal at the beeb, Clive Myrie.
The cabal Of 1, that is.

Vinny, as usual, came across as very erudite and well-informed. Portrayed him in a very good light - which of course it should given his standing in the game. Don't think Roan had much choice to bring the subject of the UEFA investigation up with him but VK's response was resolute and almost statesmanlike.

 

[OB1]

I've posted this on Twitter. It's in response to Christoph Winterbach of Der Spiegel, who I've been talking to for a while.

Doing my response this way as that means I can do a proper thread. Let me try to clear this up as I understand it. FFP is clear that owners or related parties to them can inject funds via sponsorships. But the definition of a related party can be subjective. It's set out in the accounting standard IAS24 & City (and their auditors) maintain that none of the Abu Dhabi companies are related parties under this. If they were then the transactions would have to be specified as such in the accounts and they aren't. UEFA may dispute this.

If they were related parties then those deals have to be at 'fair market value'. The main Etihad deal was deemed to be FMV by UEFA so should be fireproof, regardless of where the money originated. So any issue is with the other sponsorships - Etisalat, Aabar & Visit Abu Dhabi. The argument is therefore presumably (a) whether these are related parties & if so (b) whether the deals are therefore FMV. If not (a) then (b) doesn't apply. UEFA's auditors claimed that they were related parties and they were overvalued. That might have to be tested in court.

As well as IAS24, UEFA have self-defined a related party as any entities from a connected source, eg Abu Dhabi state companies. These are not allowed to contribute >30% of total revenue and I believe they don't (it's maybe 20% at the very most). So that's not an issue either. So the core issue may be whether the other three companies are related parties under IAS24 & whether the deals are FMV. however if this only relates to the 2012/13 year then it's questionable whether UEFA could revisit the 2014 settlement agreement.

Your own articles said that UEFA knew of these deals in 2014 and had questioned them but we failed anyway & were sanctioned. The Galatasaray CAS ruling possibly closes the route of a re-opened punishment but there's the potential issue around source of funds/timing. If this additional funding carried on after the 2014 agreement then this may be a key issue for investigation. UEFA would presumably want to check whether it was disguised owner investment so would have to conclusively prove that these funds came from ADUG/Sheikh Mansour. As we discussed my firm understanding is that Abu Dhabi protocol means 'His Highness', when not followed by a name, refers to Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ). 'His Highness Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed' would be specified in the case of Sheikh Mansour.

I can't imagine UEFA has any power to compel any Abu Dhabi company to open its books so the investigation would focus purely on City. If UEFA can't prove that these companies are related parties or that the source of funds is ADUG then they have, in my view, no case. This is only my personal view based on my knowledge of the FFP regulations. I've had no input from City and have only seen the documents you've chosen to publish so it's also based on my reading of those.

There may be other avenues or issues for them to investigate but I have no knowledge of what these may be. I note that City have welcomed the investigation & I think it's needed to clear this up once and for all. The question is whether people will accept it if City are cleared.

Nice work, sir.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I hope the bung department at the club will make sure the investigating officer has the right encouragement to reach a conclusion that favours us. That's how all this works isn't it. Or am I getting mixed up with the world cup.

The guy in charge of the investigation is an ex politician. Offer him a seat on the Abu Dhabi tourism board, after he's retired ;)

 

[razman]

Hahahaha , the bitters

 

[OmgOgs]

Trojan horse alert!

No not me. I'm not that brainy to be a trojan horse. I genuinely hope you don't get banned.
Everybody knows football is corrupt these days but the officials will scapegoat your club to make it look like they're trying to clean up their own act.

 

[WestGorton]

It is purely about race. The Fascism at the heart of football in Europe didnt take on a white Abramovitch.

 

[nmc]

They should all either no comment it or say "I am paid to play football I don't run the club's finances."

Are you Chris Grayling?