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

[blue b4 the moon]

Fucking hell, is David Conn being deliberately thick or what?

I'm still amazed paid people can spout so much shit & have so little knowledge...

Currently today Conn & that Delainey guy who refuses to look at the Stefan podcast are vying for the top spot.

 

[Len Rum]

FWIW I just want to us to win the appeal at CAS.
I'm trusting the owners have got overwhelming and compelling assurances from different and independent legal sources that this will be the case and that there's virtually no risk.
I'm not interested in us taking on UEFA on FFP.
It's risky, will likely take ages and there's no guarantee of success.
But maybe this is the real agenda.

 

[badaz52]

So can I and you're a whopper!

If all you do on a daily basis is throw insults at people that don't share your opinion, whether they are talking shit or not you can't have many teeth left.

 

[kaz7]

Yeah, with a midget and an Alsatian

Ha that would be the icing on the cake

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Perhaps more pertinent?

Uefa go to great lengths to dismiss any Executive influences on its control body and the AC.

Cerefin acting as a supposed broker (As did previously, Infantino) shows the two chambers are certainly open to coercion from the very people who are lobbied by our rivals.

City can show CAS that the entire review process is flawed and subject to manipulation.

Previously, City allowed that manipulation process to 'take our pinch' believing that was the end such matters.

However, we now have nothing to lose and must surely bring up Cerefin's attempt to broker a compromise, if he did indeed make that approach?

It's not only the 2014 settlement agreement they screwed us over.

Back in 2012 we were speaking to them regularly to gain reassurance about what we were doing to be able to take advantage of that Annex XI wages get-out. I'm told that not once but three times, we were assured that we were on the right path to be able to do that.

What the dodgy fuckers didn't tell us is that they were planning to change the way they calculated that while thing, which they did after it was too late.

So we've had two lots of assurances from them now, where they've got what they want and screwed us. Why would we take anything they said about "assurances" remotely seriously? We've been bitten twice now.

 

[petrusha]

Fucking hell, is David Conn being deliberately thick or what?

Glad you pulled him up on that piece of disinformation. I saw it but was busy at work and intended to come back later but it had slipped my mind.

Meanwhile, here's my lengthy opinion of David Conn and his work that appeared about 1200 pages back on this very thread in June 2019. I like to think that the events of this week are proving me right.

[Conn] turned up to interview Franny for a north west business publication and said that the experience left him knowing that he'd been "talking to a businessman", as if it was the most pejorative label that could possibly be attached to an interviewee. What disgraceful temerity from Franny. Someone arrives to interview you for a business magazine and you talk about business. Conn's description of the episode sounds laughably juvenile.

He's knowledgeable but not to the degree a lot of people think. He has nothing like the level of insight that someone such as Stefan from the 93:20 pod does, but then Stefan is CEO of a public company and also their senior in-house lawyer, with a track record of having advised the boards of top football clubs in his past. Conn qualified as a solicitor but left the profession immediately after doing so. As someone who's supervised newly qualified solicitors and has been one, I can tell you that their ability to navigate complex legal issues such as this is really not all that. He's probably the most knowledgeable current British journalist about business issues in sport, but very much in an 'in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King' kind of way.

I gave my view of this latest piece by Conn in this thread last night, and at quite some length. It's possible he may be right, but if he is, it seems a senseless move from City's point of view. Yet if he's made any attempt to discern why City may be more confident of their case than he is, or what arguments we may put forward that distinguish the case from the precedent he refers to in his article, there's absolutely no sign of it. He may well have asked for a view from a sports law expert before writing, but the problem with that is that to get the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. I don't think I can be confident that he has.

More generally, Conn has shifted away from his usual subject matter when started out, which had a focus on exposing wrongdoing and sharp practices in the game. Then, he wrote for The Independent and produced two excellent books. In those days, I thought he was very good - and sometimes better than that. However, for reasons far beyond the tone, I loathe the specious, holier-than-thou role he's espoused over several years in The Guardian as a self-appointed conscience of modern football. Beyond some half-baked fan ownership nonsense, never does he put forward any constructive ideas for improvement amid his dreary whinges about the state of the modern game.

Moreover, there's no room for nuance. Almost every observation is refracted through the lens of Conn's own beliefs, often in a way that's simply sophomoric. Thus, we were treated to his eccentric observation in a Guardian column that, given the flaws in the PL's current model, "fan-owned Real Madrid" are an exemplar of moral rectitude in the modern game. We have his unabashed, uncritical adoration of a FC United, an outfit whose main asset - which translates into enormous media and political goodwill - is an identity they've leeched off one of the world's most famous clubs. And when he discusses why football was ethically superior in a bygone golden age (that never actually existed), he's egregious in the way he's blind (wilfully or otherwise) to the many drawbacks of the past and improvements in the modern age.

All these faults were fully evident in Richer Than God, which I'm glad I borrowed as opposed to shelling out my own cash on it. Like so many of his articles, the book merely served as an exercise in Conn trying to substantiate his simplistic philosophy by taking liberties with the facts and rational analysis. I find it all the more difficult to sympathise with that modus operandi given that I consider the philosophy in question to amount to little more than vapid, hand-wringing bullshit.

So sorry, those who profess admiration for him. You admire Conn if you want to. But put me down in the 'not a fan' camp.​

 

[OB1]

E. Related party, related party transactions and fair value of related party transactions 1. A related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity that is preparing its financial statements (the ‘reporting entity’). 2. A person or a close member of that person’s family is related to a reporting entity if that person: a) has control or joint control over the reporting entity; b) has significant influence over the reporting entity; or c) is a member of the key management personnel of the reporting entity or of a parent of the reporting entity. 3. An entity is related to a reporting entity if any of the following conditions apply: a) The entity and the reporting entity are members of the same group (which means that each parent, subsidiary and fellow subsidiary is related to the others); b) One entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member); c) Both entities are joint ventures of the same third party; d) One entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity; e) The entity is a post-employment benefit plan for the benefit of employees of either the reporting entity or an entity related to the reporting entity. If the reporting entity is itself such a plan, the sponsoring employers are also related to the reporting entity; f) The entity is controlled or jointly controlled by a person identified in paragraph 2; or g) A person identified in paragraph 2(a) has significant influence over the entity or is a member of the key management personnel of the entity (or of a parent of the entity). ENG_20120521_CLFFP 2012_en_final.indd 87 21.05.12 17:36 84 4. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the following definitions apply: a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner. b) Control is the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an entity so as to obtain benefits from its activities. c) A joint venture is a contractual arrangement whereby two or more parties undertake an economic activity that is subject to joint control. d) Joint control is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an economic activity, and exists only when the strategic financial and operating decisions relating to the activity require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control (the venturers). e) Key management personnel are those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or otherwise) of that entity. f) Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity, but is not control over those policies. Significant influence may be gained by share ownership, statute or agreement. g) An associate is an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, over which the investor has significant influence and that is neither a subsidiary nor an interest in a joint venture. In the definition of a related party, an associate includes subsidiaries of the associate and a joint venture includes subsidiaries of the joint venture.
Therefore, for example, an associate's subsidiary and the investor that has significant influence over the associate are related to each other. 5. In considering each possible related party relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. The following are not related parties: a) Two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key management personnel in common or because a member of key management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other entity. b) Two venturers simply because they share joint control over a joint venture. c) Providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an 85 entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or participate in its decision-making process). d) A customer, supplier, franchisor, distributor or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business, simply by virtue of the resulting economic dependence. 6. A related party transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged (disclosure requirements in respect of related parties and related party transactions are set out in Annex VI). 7. A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party relationship. ENG_20120521_CLFFP 2012_en_final.indd 88 21.05.12 17:36 84 4. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the following definitions apply: a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner. b) Control is the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an entity so as to obtain benefits from its activities. c) A joint venture is a contractual arrangement whereby two or more parties undertake an economic activity that is subject to joint control. d) Joint control is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an economic activity, and exists only when the strategic financial and operating decisions relating to the activity require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control (the venturers). e) Key management personnel are those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or otherwise) of that entity. f) Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity, but is not control over those policies. Significant influence may be gained by share ownership, statute or agreement. g) An associate is an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, over which the investor has significant influence and that is neither a subsidiary nor an interest in a joint venture. In the definition of a related party, an associate includes subsidiaries of the associate and a joint venture includes subsidiaries of the joint venture. Therefore, for example, an associate's subsidiary and the investor that has significant influence over the associate are related to each other. 5. In considering each possible related party relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. The following are not related parties: a) Two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key management personnel in common or because a member of key management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other entity. b) Two venturers simply because they share joint control over a joint venture. c) Providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an 85 entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or participate in its decision-making process). d) A customer, supplier, franchisor, distributor or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business, simply by virtue of the resulting economic dependence. 6. A related party transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged (disclosure requirements in respect of related parties and related party transactions are set out in Annex VI). 7. A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party relationship

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf
If anyone can be arsed looking at it (I'm working at the minute so will have a read later), I'm pretty sure this is the relevant rule:

I've read it in the past and I am familiar with the accounting standard that is based.

Etihad are not a related party.

This bit could be important because Khaldoon is a member of the EC:
"In considering each possible related party relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. The following are not related parties: a) Two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key management personnel in common or because a member of key management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other entity."

Very significantly, Mansour is not a member of the EC.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

There’s not a chance in hell City aren’t winning this. It’s what happens after that’s the issue.

The potential loss of earnings alone could bankrupt UEFA and there lies the problem, are the G14 using us to break the CL so they can all go to the FIFA club league

 

[OB1]

I accept we may have done it as a technicality to facilitate the transfer of the monies but in doing so we may have dropped a bollock.
You say it makes 'no difference how it was routed'.
Is there anything in FFP that says this and if not then I go back to base and say that if it came through ADUG it came through a related party and that is entirely relevant as that is the link to our owners .
If it comes through a bank or clearing house then no problem - no link to the owners.

No point going round in circles. The FFP rule that I have just quoted above refers to substance over form - it's a concept very familiar and fundamental to accountants and I am absolutely certain it would apply here.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

Just read that article in the Guardian by Jonathan Wilson to me it seems that he is making this up as he is going along. What I want to know is how the sports editor let him get away with publishing this garbage. Let any City fan who now buys the Guardian. now by a different paper and also send a e-mail/letter to the editor and the same one to the chairman/woman. This to let him know that unless Jonathan Wilson is going put into the Guardian newspaper a full and frank apology you and any member of your family will never be buying Guardian newspaper again. Better still he has to be sacked.