You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
M
manchester blue
Guest
I have a feeling that our Club are building a portfolio of individual persons and their tweets or quotes that will allow them to be sued for libel.
Uefa is struggling for survival and those individuals hiding behind its name may find they are the recipient of legal process rather than the organisation they represent.
As well as the usual suspects in the press I hope they go for at least one regular Joe who has spouted libel. Hopefully a scouser just to annoy them some more.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
Surely this is the issue of Fair Value. Any sponsorship deals that PSG get that are anywhere the value of a deal City get is inflated and therefore not fair value. The French league does not have the worldwide appeal of the Premier League, it does not get the revenue of the PL. This is where through ignorance or not, I do believe that PSG are treated differently. One could even argue that although the Mbappe deal wasn't illegal it was most certainly not in the spirit of the rules and most certainly PSG sticking two fingers up at UEFA. Had that been City it would not have been taken lightly.
I think both things have an element of truth, is maybe where the argument lies.
It's unfair to say PSG have had 'special' treatment, as they have been shit on, by these bent fucks & it's out of order.
But your point is correct: anything City have been corruptly found 'guilty' of, they have been more 'guilty' of.
We couldn't have afforded Neymar & Mbappe, but they can. Because their sponsorship had been allowed to be high enough to cover it. Ours allowance should be greater, because our exposure is greater, but we don't get that allowance.
Now their case has gone away, due to a convenient procedural fuckup by UEFA & then one of their people, given a job in the cartel.
Whilst we are being publically lynched & our reputation attacked, with the deliberate help of people on the panel investigating, due apparently to a technicality they have found they might get us on, rather than the actual 'crime' itself . They are going to 'try' & get us, if they can.
Both clubs have been shit on, but they are 'after' us, not PSG.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
This has all come about, by the way, because we didn't tell them to fuck off, in the first place.
We should have done, exactly what they accused us of.
We should have done, exactly what they accused us of.
Weaknesses in UEFA's case in no particular order:
1) Due process.
a) It's supposed to be a confidential process and yet journalists are discussing how confident UEFA investigators are and what their concerns are. Does this matter? It's not like there's a jury, but the biggest problem City have in my opinion is that after years of innuendo, there is now an almost universal acceptance that City are cheats and that UEFA must show its teeth against the rich and powerful or will lose all credibility.
b) If you read the Manchester City statement, we also add that the process has been "curtailed" and we also learn that UEFA 'filed' this on the last possible day, which makes you wonder whether they have actually considered the case properly. The BBC report that UEFA feel that City have not answered issues about deception. Is this because the case is incomplete? City say, "The decision contains mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process and there remain significant unresolved matters".
2) The financial value of the "inflated sponsorships".
Both the BBC and NY Times both claimed that investigators feel that City's evidence "do not refer to the more pertinent allegation that they may have misled investigators."
UEFA's first review showed that they did not write down the value of the Etihad deal. And I think that it is unlikely that UEFA can demonstrate that Etihad are a related party. Etihad are the state airline. Their sponsorship is underwritten by the Executive Council of the United Arab Emirates. Sheikh Mansour does not control Etihad Airlines. Khaldoon, City's Chairman sits on the Executive Council but for me the Executive Council just underwrites their financial obligations, they do not control their commercial activities, and I don't see how anyone can claim that they do. The Der Spiegel evidence jut showed how the financial obligations were linked to the Executive Council, they do not show that City can have influenced the commercial value of the original deal.
The smaller sponsorships are more awkward. For example UEFA could argue that Aabar is a related party because Sheikh Mansour is the Chairman of International Petroleum Investment Company which is a sovereign wealth fund which holds a large investment in Aabar. It's a matter of accounting interpretation whether they are related parties, however the collective smaller UAE sponsorships are worth around £15m (I haven't checked that but I am pretty sure the transaction value is in that order).
UEFA would have to show that City's UAE sponsorships are a) inflated and b) related parties. I think they only stand a chance of doing so in respect of the smaller sponsorships, so are they really going to ban City over "£10m to £20m of inflated sponsorship". That sounds wholly disproportionate when City's current revenue is over £500m. I forget what it was then, but it would have been of the order of £100ms
The Der Spiegel news surfaced after City's last audited accounts were released. It would have been an interesting test to see what the Auditors made of these claims of related parties. If I were in City's shoes, I would ask our auditors to review the evidence and submit that to UEFA.
Conclusion: I think UEFA will feel obliged to sanction City based on their image as a regulator and City's media created image as an ogre, but I don't think they have a case. Indeed I think they may have deliberately played this out until the last possible day to file the case, in order that CAS throw it out on the basis of due process thus getting them out of a hole.
If they do their job properly, I think at the most UEFA could stipulate that the smaller UAE sponsorships should be written down, and fine City the difference. It has to be remembered that the whole 'subterfuge' was initiated when UEFA changed the assessment rules at the 11th hour which many people would argue was an act of subterfuge in the first place.
The problem I have is the competence of UEFA, their independence, and the independence of any judicial bodies in dealing with a club owned by Middle-eastern owners. Can City expect a fair hearing? UEFA in my opinion are very weak. I think they are more interested in bolstering a battered reputation than they are in the technicalities of the case. City represent an opportunity for them to become a white knight and on that basis, not the evidence I expect them to ban City, but I expect CAS to throw it out on due process and disproportionate punishment.
This is my reading of the matter without access to the evidence but based on the media narrative and comments coming out of both camps
1) Due process.
a) It's supposed to be a confidential process and yet journalists are discussing how confident UEFA investigators are and what their concerns are. Does this matter? It's not like there's a jury, but the biggest problem City have in my opinion is that after years of innuendo, there is now an almost universal acceptance that City are cheats and that UEFA must show its teeth against the rich and powerful or will lose all credibility.
b) If you read the Manchester City statement, we also add that the process has been "curtailed" and we also learn that UEFA 'filed' this on the last possible day, which makes you wonder whether they have actually considered the case properly. The BBC report that UEFA feel that City have not answered issues about deception. Is this because the case is incomplete? City say, "The decision contains mistakes, misinterpretations and confusions fundamentally borne out of a basic lack of due process and there remain significant unresolved matters".
2) The financial value of the "inflated sponsorships".
Both the BBC and NY Times both claimed that investigators feel that City's evidence "do not refer to the more pertinent allegation that they may have misled investigators."
UEFA's first review showed that they did not write down the value of the Etihad deal. And I think that it is unlikely that UEFA can demonstrate that Etihad are a related party. Etihad are the state airline. Their sponsorship is underwritten by the Executive Council of the United Arab Emirates. Sheikh Mansour does not control Etihad Airlines. Khaldoon, City's Chairman sits on the Executive Council but for me the Executive Council just underwrites their financial obligations, they do not control their commercial activities, and I don't see how anyone can claim that they do. The Der Spiegel evidence jut showed how the financial obligations were linked to the Executive Council, they do not show that City can have influenced the commercial value of the original deal.
The smaller sponsorships are more awkward. For example UEFA could argue that Aabar is a related party because Sheikh Mansour is the Chairman of International Petroleum Investment Company which is a sovereign wealth fund which holds a large investment in Aabar. It's a matter of accounting interpretation whether they are related parties, however the collective smaller UAE sponsorships are worth around £15m (I haven't checked that but I am pretty sure the transaction value is in that order).
UEFA would have to show that City's UAE sponsorships are a) inflated and b) related parties. I think they only stand a chance of doing so in respect of the smaller sponsorships, so are they really going to ban City over "£10m to £20m of inflated sponsorship". That sounds wholly disproportionate when City's current revenue is over £500m. I forget what it was then, but it would have been of the order of £100ms
The Der Spiegel news surfaced after City's last audited accounts were released. It would have been an interesting test to see what the Auditors made of these claims of related parties. If I were in City's shoes, I would ask our auditors to review the evidence and submit that to UEFA.
Conclusion: I think UEFA will feel obliged to sanction City based on their image as a regulator and City's media created image as an ogre, but I don't think they have a case. Indeed I think they may have deliberately played this out until the last possible day to file the case, in order that CAS throw it out on the basis of due process thus getting them out of a hole.
If they do their job properly, I think at the most UEFA could stipulate that the smaller UAE sponsorships should be written down, and fine City the difference. It has to be remembered that the whole 'subterfuge' was initiated when UEFA changed the assessment rules at the 11th hour which many people would argue was an act of subterfuge in the first place.
The problem I have is the competence of UEFA, their independence, and the independence of any judicial bodies in dealing with a club owned by Middle-eastern owners. Can City expect a fair hearing? UEFA in my opinion are very weak. I think they are more interested in bolstering a battered reputation than they are in the technicalities of the case. City represent an opportunity for them to become a white knight and on that basis, not the evidence I expect them to ban City, but I expect CAS to throw it out on due process and disproportionate punishment.
This is my reading of the matter without access to the evidence but based on the media narrative and comments coming out of both camps
Last edited:
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,243
1) PSG don’t get anywhere near as much (for FFP purposes - at 50m per year from QTA) than we get from Etihad.Surely this is the issue of Fair Value. Any sponsorship deals that PSG get that are anywhere the value of a deal City get is inflated and therefore not fair value. The French league does not have the worldwide appeal of the Premier League, it does not get the revenue of the PL. This is where through ignorance or not, I do believe that PSG are treated differently. One could even argue that although the Mbappe deal wasn't illegal it was most certainly not in the spirit of the rules and most certainly PSG sticking two fingers up at UEFA. Had that been City it would not have been taken lightly.
2) how is the Mbappé purpose not in the spirit of the rules? We’ve sold players before on a one year loan with a compulsion for the other team to buy at the end of it. Negredo being one of them.
I do wish people would stop trying to have a go at PS fucking G and simply concentrate of UEFA being a bunch of ****s.
PSG May have spent big of two players but we have spent significant sums on LOTS of players and have a higher annual amortisation cost per year. Personally I’d rather have a very strong squad rather than a good squad with one or two stars in it and am perfectly happy with City’s approach.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 8,577
To be honest a ban is always likely to happen
with the Dippers Rampaging around Europe in a Champs league final.........
with the Dippers Rampaging around Europe in a Champs league final.........
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
I see Miguel Delaney is City bashing big time in the Independent today. And he seems to have been on here quite a bit too. Not posting the link as it will boil your blood. Some good responses in the open comments section though.
That article has been copied and pasted for years, same bullshit rinsed and repeat.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Is @Prestwich_Blue correct that CAS can only rule if procedure has been followed rather than if the case itself is proven?
If that’s right we can hardly get our name cleared through CAS. Or have I misunderstood the YouTube interview?
If that’s right we can hardly get our name cleared through CAS. Or have I misunderstood the YouTube interview?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.