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

[Brendan110_0]

Do CAS have a history of fair judgements?

Yes. If UEFA are doing us based on "not in the spirit of FFP" then we'll have the ban quashed.

 

[manimanc]

This tells us a lot, very clear and in simple terms. Thanks @Prestwich_Blue for certainly putting my mind at ease.

 

[domalino]

I have no problem with the athletic, well no more than any other media outlet at the moment, but in the article that mentioned about the meeting with pep and the players on saturday it began with stating that the club execs had stipulated to the players in the most stringent terms the absolute requirement for a full and total lack of leaks to anyone outside the club regarding this matter. It then went on to state what had been said and by whom at said meeting....

Oh dear. Your reading comprehension not up to much?

The part of the article which discussed leaking/the importance of things being watertight was about Friday morning when the club found out about UEFAs decision and prepared a response before the announcement.

Nowhere in the article did it say the players were told by executives in stringent terms about the absolute need for no leaks. Nowhere did it say there was an emphasis on things not leaking out of the players meeting.


If you're going to critique articles, at least understand them first? Or at least dont invent things to disagree with?

Theres about 3 or 4 friendly journalists in the country at this point who are not attacking the club, for the life of me I dont fucking know why people are determined to dump them in with the rest of the twats when they are the only people putting a decent word out about the club to the rest of the world.

 

[flb]

They were in a rush to pass judgement before the deadline.

hell of a gamble though mate if that’s the case , just get the impression there’s stuff floating about none of us are privy to.

 

[DAGW]

So assuming that the Etihad sponsorship is the main crux of UEFA's prosecution, and the email that's been floated about is their main piece of evidence...

City sign sponsorship deal with Etihad
v
UEFA agree that it's fair value so long as we don't extend it for 2 years
v
Etihad can't afford to pay the full amount
v
The UAE (NOT ADUG) agree to bail them out and pay the sponsorship deal - as it's government owned
v
An internal club email is sent referencing an inconspicuous HRH who is actually the Emir, that on one hand (if you're scouse) looks dodgy, but on the other actually looks like someone pointing out that we need an audit trail
v
City are successful and pose a threat to the entitled ones
v
UEFA look for anything they can use as a stick to beat us
v
A hacker (who may or may not have been UEFA funded in some way - this needs to be looked into even if they merely paid for the docs) steals documents including said email
v
Der Speigel with Bayern's best interests at heart leak said email and suggest HRH is our owner
v
UEFA get so wet they can't keep their power dry - and charge us

Is that about the crux of it?

**Edited for further accuracy

 

[jaiguruKun]

They must have something else on us surely , the info and money trail as to who actually pressed the button in the Etihad payments must surely be available to have stopped it getting to the stage where the club and owners have been slandered ? None of it makes any sense at all .

I assume that this is what the club means when it refers to irrefutable evidence which proves its innocence. This all seems to have been conveniently ignored by UEFA, I doubt CAS will make the same mistake.

 

[Dubai Blue]

sorry, i am reading as much as i can but it's fucking complicated - who is the Executive Council? (i know who ADUG are). Why would it not matter if the monies to Etihad came from them? non-related party?

i might just stick to what's happening on the pitch :D

It's basically the local government of Abu Dhabi.

Crucially, we're not owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, we're owned by an individual from the royal family (Sheikh Mansour), who in turn owns ADUG.

But the companies in question (Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, etc.) are all, at least in part, government owned.

To be the main sponsor of a successful, high-profile club like Manchester City back then would cost in the region of £50-70m a year. Now, Etihad couldn't afford to pay that kind of money, but the Abu Dhabi government wanted its airline to gain the exposure that would come with being such a prominent sponsor. So it topped up Etihad's funds accordingly.

That's the theory anyway.

The alternative (UEFA) argument is that ADUG wanted to prop up Manchester City so funneled money to it through various sponsors. But there seems to be evidence that it was the EC paying this money, not ADUG.

So, if UEFA accept that these sponsorships represented fair value (i.e., we could have commanded similar amounts from any international companies), surely that suggests the government was seeking to "prop up" Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, etc. — NOT Manchester City — by enabling them to gain exposure on the international stage.

In short, I don't blame you for being confused!

 

[blue&whitepauly]

the more we hear the more it affirms what we already know about UEFA, disgusting really and I hope if City can get this overturned that they can then seek some sort of redress against UEFA for what would (in that case) be malpractise

 

[squirtyflower]

I suppose having a ping pong player pontificating in the national media as some sort of football expert shows a degree of diversity.

Arguably arrogance and pure stupidity, but you could also opine that’s diversity when the conference is for the country’s top headteachers.
Oh no, forget that, it’s more homogenous than diverse

 

[Len Rum]

They must have something else on us surely , the info and money trail as to who actually pressed the button in the Etihad payments must surely be available to have stopped it getting to the stage where the club and owners have been slandered ? None of it makes any sense at all .

Could it be that bit about breaking the 'club licensing arrangements' in the judgement?
Sorry I don't know the answer, been trying to find out?