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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is from Der Spiegel:
"That money is then "routed through the partners and they then forward onto us," wrote Finance Director Andrew Widdowson in an email. That, at least, is how things were done in 2015: At the time, the deal with Etihad was bringing in 67.5 million pounds annually. But Chief Financial Officer Chumillas emphasized in an email to Pearce: "Please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG."

This from Reuters:

In an August 2013 email, Jorge Chumillas, then chief financial officer at City Football Group, the company through which Sheikh Mansour controls Manchester City Football
Club (MCFC), asked Pearce about the arrangement by which money flowed through Etihad, an airline owned by the Abu Dhabi government
"I need to understand the mechanism by which additional sponsorship flows through ADUG.
Is it ADUG Shareholder->ADUG->Etihad->MCFC?
Or is it rather ADUG Shareholder->Etihad->MCFC?," Chunillas wrote.

Thanks. There's more substance to it than I remembered, but it's still highly selective quoting that can't be taken to be remotely conclusive in the absence of other related correspondence and thus could be completely misleading.
 
Thanks. There's more substance to it than I remembered, but it's still highly selective quoting that can't be taken to be remotely conclusive in the absence of other related correspondence and thus could be completely misleading.

I vaguely recall that selective quoting also being book ended by somebody saying : "We can do what we like"?
 
Manchester City have been fantastic for Abu Dhabi & they have often said are the highest profile of all the sponsorships & partnerships they do. Why would they give that up when they’ve been the visionaries behind it all just because shit house journalists & corrupt officials question the legitimacy of it all.

They could easily get more from someone else but they deserve the reduced sponsorship for making it happen.

The first point is correct; they’ve bought a massive advertising platform to project their State and it’s airline, via the global exposure of the Premier League. There’s not a chance they will dilute that by bringing in external primary sponsors.

For that reason, people need to stop taking this FFP situation personally; it’s a direct conflict between UEFA and Abu Dhabi - if it was Stoke City or Coventry City that they bought instead, they’d still be going after them.

FFP has actually been brilliant for the game; the ‘cartel clubs’ people alledge it was spawned to protect have been nowhere near winning the league or Champions League (the Milan clubs, United, Arsenal etc) since it’s implementation. Self-sufficient clubs like Atletico, Dortmund, Liverpool and Spurs have all gotten to European finals, while Monaco and Ajax have also made a big impact on the competition. Real couldn’t spend any proper money for circa 5 years, Leicester and Monaco have won league titles....it’s been a fantastic time for clubs with smaller budgets - but shrewd sporting strategy - to make an impact.
 
I vaguely recall that selective quoting also being book ended by somebody saying : "We can do what we like"?

I think that was Pearce.

It's all about context though, as we all know. If the next line was "don't be silly, we can't do that as it's against the rules", it's not quite as good a story!
 
FFP has actually been brilliant for the game; the ‘cartel clubs’ people alledge it was spawned to protect have been nowhere near winning the league or Champions League (the Milan clubs, United, Arsenal etc) since it’s implementation. Self-sufficient clubs like Atletico, Dortmund, Liverpool and Spurs have all gotten to European finals, while Monaco and Ajax have also made a big impact on the competition. Real couldn’t spend any proper money for circa 5 years, Leicester and Monaco have won league titles....it’s been a fantastic time for clubs with smaller budgets - but shrewd sporting strategy - to make an impact.
Sorry but FFP has had nothing to do with those teams getting to European finals. FFP although not invented by, it definitely was hijacked by the cartel clubs to protect their status from "new money". If it wasn't, why is it nothing to do with debt when it obviously should be, as it was pitched to everyone from the beginning?

It has maybe made some club owners more responsible(or has it just given some an extra excuse to penny pinch like they already wanted to do?) but I thought I read recently that it's made no difference across the board on the amount of clubs building up debt and even those going into administration.
 
Last edited:
This is from Der Spiegel:
"That money is then "routed through the partners and they then forward onto us," wrote Finance Director Andrew Widdowson in an email. That, at least, is how things were done in 2015: At the time, the deal with Etihad was bringing in 67.5 million pounds annually. But Chief Financial Officer Chumillas emphasized in an email to Pearce: "Please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG."

This from Reuters:

In an August 2013 email, Jorge Chumillas, then chief financial officer at City Football Group, the company through which Sheikh Mansour controls Manchester City Football
Club (MCFC), asked Pearce about the arrangement by which money flowed through Etihad, an airline owned by the Abu Dhabi government
"I need to understand the mechanism by which additional sponsorship flows through ADUG.
Is it ADUG Shareholder->ADUG->Etihad->MCFC?
Or is it rather ADUG Shareholder->Etihad->MCFC?," Chunillas wrote.
Would it surprise anyone if they deliberately aren't quoting the emails word for word? Such as leaving out 59.5 "arranged" by ADUG "via it's contacts". Or something to that effect.

From what I did read at the time I remember there was a lot between the quotes without any evidence to fill in the gaps to their story. Such as "67.5 million annually" when that's news to everyone in itself, casually throwing things in hoping nobody will notice or ask for proof. City certainly did notice that pattern.
 
Last edited:
Makes far more sense than Chevrolet, who don't sell cars in Europe anymore, sponsoring United.

That was a bent deal anyway. It was signed off without the knowledge of the General Motors board by a marketing executive (Joel Ewanick) who was immediately fired without compensation for exceeding his authority. GM's official comment was brief. "Ewanick failed to meet the expectations that the company has for its employees." $70 million in the first season (2014-15) rising 2.1% each subsequent season (to 2020-21) plus $37.2 million in "fees" during the two seasons BEFORE the actual sponsorship started. All signed off in 2012 just 3 years after GM went bankrupt and had a $50 billion bailout from the US taxpayer, $11.2 billion of which was never recovered and had to be paid by US taxpayers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.