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

[Jordie]

They still wouldn’t get the massage.

Like it ;-)

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

If Etihad could only afford 6m and we were getting 60m from them than inflated is a fair word to use, whether we've got a case to answer about the origin of the other 54m or not.

I look at the amount of 60 Million being the value of the Sponsorship that City would expect to attract easily not what Etihad could afford (not sure who's in a position to say what Etihad could afford tbh). I say this based on the fact this amount (60 million) was not devalued or altered by the original investigation and subsequent agreement. It would only be inflated (increased or raised beyond what is normal or valid*) if that were 70 or more in value.
*Collins

I think the actual meaning is important in legal terms and its not just semantics.

 

[tonea2003]

Transfer thread is that way, Trev ;)

If it were down to me, however, I'd be slapping my schlong on the table and next to me would be sat 15 wheelbarrows full of £200m worth of one euro coins, dumped on the fucking office of the Barca boardroom and I'm walking out with Messi.

I'd obviously be furnished with a GoPro, streaming it live over the Internet, before firing a glance which says, 'C'mon you fucking crooks, see you in court.'

i like the cut of your jib

 

[OB1]

Transfer thread is that way, Trev ;)

If it were down to me, however, I'd be slapping my schlong on the table and next to me would be sat 15 wheelbarrows full of £200m worth of one euro coins, dumped on the fucking office of the Barca boardroom and I'm walking out with Messi.

I'd obviously be furnished with a GoPro, streaming it live over the Internet, before firing a glance which says, 'C'mon you fucking crooks, see you in court.'

I reckon Messi in our side next season would set a new record for Premier League goals scored by a player in a single season - if only...

 

[Mid Wales blue]

The club statement makes it clear that City intend this matter to be resolved by "an independent judicial body" and the assumption, held almost universally, is that this is CAS. I cannot agree. The only cases CAS has dealt with concerning FFP were those of PSG, in which they overturned the verdict because CFCB had not followed its correct procedure, and AC Milan, where exclusion from European competition was not deemed a suitable punishment. City's difference with UEFA seems far wider. There is certainly fury at UEFA's failure to follow correct procedure, hence its reference to the leaks and its naming of Yves Leterme. But our complaint is not simply about "due process" but apparently concerns the entire competence of UEFA to deal with such matters. City have no intention of pleading fair cop gov but let us off because.... (as Milan and PSG appear to have done). City are going to argue that the whole matter of leaving this to UEFA is unacceptable. It appears we are not necessarily accused of breaching FFP rules but of "financial irregularities. This phraseology may be important because if it involves the integrity of City's accounts it may well bring into question certain very big players indeed as well and the commercial courts will be very interested to know UEFA's qualifications for pronouncing on such questions. CAS may deal with the question of the "hostile process" involved but a chamber which "ignores a body of irrefutable evidence provided by Manchester City FC to the chamber" on a matter of major financial/commercial interest? One of the issues certainly appears to be emerging as the right of UEFA to poke it nose into such matters at all - not just because it makes such a mess of it. And we are only the smallest of steps to the whole question of whether UEFA has any right to limit investment in any form by a club owner in his club. I think the endgame is coming and City seem ominously confident

I hope the club and our owner, don’t stop until they’ve, “bricked the windows, smashed their back doors in, and burnt to the ground”.

 

[Len Rum]

A query from Len 'the non conformist of Neasden' Rum.
If Sheikh Mansour is deemed not to be a related party to Etihad then under FFP he cannot provide funds to Etihad for them to subsequently sponsor City?
So such a practice would be against FFP rules but the problem for UEFA is proving it?

 

[Henkeman]

It always struck me as strange that the Etihad sponsorship was questioned as fair value or not. Some 12 months or so before Etihad and City announced the sponsorship deal Arsenal had announced a deal for a similar level of sponsorship to cover the Emirates package. Compare the situation, Emirates got a stadium named after them and their name on a shirt of a team who had little in the way of success for several years and no obvious signs for improvement. Etihad got the same plus a state of the art training facility, a good opportunity for further development and the chance to be associated with one of Europe's rising brands and a very successful football club with great management behind it.

It probably was overvalued for the first few years of it, but then it was undervalued for the last few. It was frontloaded as far as City were concerned, relative to where they were at the time, but Etihad got a bargain as it proceeded and City were successful.

But this is a nuanced, considered point, and not one the idiots who scream about this would listen to.

 

[DAV771]

Be careful what you write @DAV771
Statements like that can get you into a lot of trouble.
Not only is it uneducated of you, it is borderline slander.
A bit of research and common sense, should have been applied to your first post.
You will not last very long on this forum as a WUM!

I was unaware that it was considered so insulting in honesty. It's a term I've seen used all over the place & just adopted it.

So, I apologise to anyone I may have offended with my first post. As I said, I came here to understand the City side of the argument and a few posters have enlightened me. I'd obviously be more clued up if the media reported both sides but the "City are cheating scum" angle clearly sells more.

For what it's worth, it's been an absolute pleasure watching City these past couple of seasons. The best football I've ever seen.

 

[117 M34]

If Etihad could only afford 6m and we were getting 60m from them than inflated is a fair word to use, whether we've got a case to answer about the origin of the other 54m or not.

Inflatee means we got more than we should.
If the contract says 60m and our accounts say 60m and we got 60m, then it's not inflated.

 

[domalino]

Inflatee means we got more than we should.
If the contract says 60m and our accounts say 60m and we got 60m, then it's not inflated.

Inflated means larger than it should be. If Etihad literally don't have the money to give us 60m and we're getting it from elsewhere channeled through them then it is inflated.

It's also seemingly legal based on UEFA's rules if they've agreed on the value, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

It can be described as inflated accurately regardless of whether we're innocent or not.


Personally I think it might be time to change the Etihad sponsorship on the shirt at least. It's a tarnished name, and getting a legit 3rd party like Nissan would go a decent way to making the commercial revenue more legit.