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

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

UEFA have their own sponsors. If the shit hits their fan they will run for the hills.

Who determined whether their sponsorships were for a fair market value?

 

[Manncity]

Three things hopefully..
1. Part of settlement we get a place/seat on the ECA.
2. We sue uefa for damages to the CFG.
3. We explore or invite any ex or present employees of the top clubs who have any information regarding wrong doings at those said clubs,and they will be handsomely rewarded.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I think this might depend on who is filing any legal suit. If it’s City, under accounting protocols, wouldn’t it be classed as an MCFC business expense and therefore allocated to City’s P & L? (And from there affect our FFP situation.)

However, it might be feasible to take action as ADUG rather than MCFC.

Herein lies yet another legal question.

legal aid ;}, probably a question for petrusha or pb.

 

[Fame Monster]

David Conn on the guardian football weekly podcast after taking his magic mushrooms:

Manchester City have NOT been given this penalty because they breached FFP rules in the sense they made too much of a loss or their finances weren't what they should have bee, which obviously is what FFP is all about trying to make clubs live within their means and not make too much of a loss, but this is not what City have been found guilty.......

The issue is they were deceitful and not truthful when they said it was Etihad and not Sheikh Mansour the owner who was clearly paying £57mil.
It was a breach of trust which is always a worse offence than the offence itself...an example (but not a direct paralllel) is it is an offence if you get pulled for speeding you get 3 points on your licence and you might get a fine..but if you lie and you were driving the car when in fact your partner was driving the car well that becomes a very serious offence and you go to prison...so City are not being done for a breach of FFP they are being for a serious breach of trust"

1. Being deceitful isn't always 'a worse offence than the offence itself': it's in most jurisdictions (according to sentencing guidelines) far less serious than the original offence itself and results in much fewer prosecutions. Even in the UK, if I turned up at the Guardian's offices and slapped David Conn's bald head but then denied it, the only prosecution I'd face is one for the (common) assault.

2. More importantly, nowhere in the 'UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations' or 'the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body' does it say that:

• 'Breach of trust' is an offence
• 'Breach of trust' or a similar offence is more serious than any other offence

Once again, it looks like Conn's arrived at an opinion not just without facts but in the opposition of facts.

He really is a disgrace to journalism.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Ferran Soriano, in his 2011 book Goal: The Ball Doesn’t Go in By Chance. “Like all industries,” he wrote, “football also has a regulatory body … that defines the competition rules and monitors their compliance. However, with an enormous, unique difference, this regulator also competes in the football market with some very advantageous conditions … They compete with the clubs for the audience … They also compete for sponsors … They exercise their powers in very favourable conditions: they fix the calendar, the competition. A more normal situation would be for Uefa and Fifa to concentrate on doing what a bakers’ guild really does, which is to regulate and not to compete. But this is not possible.”

Jonathan Wilson in the Guardian sponsored by Marvin: That sounds a lot like somebody who has been waiting for years to cut Uefa down to size. But Soriano does have a point. There is an inherent contradiction when the game’s regulator is also a financial competitor. And it is precisely that fact that is so dangerous for Uefa.

Wilson references our closeness to FIFA/Infantano and the power struggle between UEFA/FIFA and the Club World Cup.

This prompted me look again at the financing behind the re-jigged FIFA Club World Cup which had $25 billion on the table backed by SoftBank.
Khaldoon is CEO of Mubadala which is the second largest investor with a stake of $15billion in a SoftBank $100billion investment fund.

Not directly relevant to the thread but maybe a clue as to where this is all heading. The scale of investment is huge and puts into perspective how small the investment in City is in relative terms.
Irrespective of what happens with UEFA in the short-term I think it is reasonable to say City will be ok in the future :)

 

[BluechesterCity]

My god, check out what lies and rubbish Jamie Carragher has been saying after the game at Chelsea. How is he able to get away with such unsubstantiated drivel?

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/liverpool-hero-jamie-carragher-slams-21518312

 

[Stoned Rose]

[BQUOTE="gordondaviesmoustache, post: 12450297, member: 33343"]https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/do-you-shave-your-balls.342683/[/QUOTE]
Potential to be a "classic thread' sadly unfulfilled.

 

[Shaelumstash]

What Conn is saying is true, that is what we are being accused off.

He’s not said that we have done it, but that is what UEFA have done us for

Don’t get me wrong I have issues with him, but we can’t pretend this is not what has happened.

Actually, it’s not true at all.

Conn states that “clearly Sheikh Mansour is the source of the £57m”

What is he basing that on? The hacked emails.

First rule of financial litigation - follow the money. That’s what PB did and it turns out the £57m came from the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. Absolutely nothing to do with Sheikh Mansour.

Perhaps Conn should have given his old pal PB a call before he jumped in and made himself look silly again.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

1. Being deceitful isn't always 'a worse offence than the offence itself': it's in most jurisdictions (according to sentencing guidelines) far less serious than the original offence itself and results in much fewer prosecutions. Even in the UK, if I turned up at the Guardian's offices and slapped David Conn's bald head but then denied it, the only prosecution I'd face is one for the (common) assault.

2. More importantly, nowhere in the 'UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations' or 'the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body' does it say that:

• 'Breach of trust' is an offence
• 'Breach of trust' or a similar offence is more serious than any other offence

Once again, it looks like Conn's arrived at an opinion not just without facts but in the opposition of facts.

He really is a disgrace to journalism.

Spot on.

Reminds me of another whopper he came out with the other night on Radio 5 Live. He was talking down to Ian Cheeseman who had used the word "cabal" and said you have to be very careful using words like that without knowing the full meaning. Then said, in anycase, Liverpool weren't in any cabal because they were struggling in the early days after our takeover.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Any chance of a podcast with Conn and PB? Would Conn have the balls to do it?