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

[KS55]

Makes it even more staggering that we’re up before the beak then!

Well, we don't know exactly what the charge details are.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Well, we don't know exactly what the charge details are.

There aren't any - charges can only be brought against someone when they break a law.

 

[ballinio]

I reckon we're innocent

Me too, just got a feeling

 

[WRicko]

We'd have been very stupid if that was the case and I've said before, it'd serve us right if it could be clearly shown that we'd accepted money separately and lumped it in with Etihad's contribution. But the emails seemed to make it clear we didn't do that, and that we were asking that things be done by the book, so that all the money was seen to come from Etihad and them alone. I suspect we've got emails that Der Spiegel conveniently forgot to print which show that beyond reasonable doubt.

The issue of related parties wasn't actually dealt with properly in 2014. UEFA seemed to be claiming Etihad were a related party whereas we denied that. This was never settled. I've said on a number of occasions that, in my view, the smart move would have been to say to UEFA that for the purposes of FFP and FFP alone, we would accept them to be related. Then, if as is suggested, UEFA accepted that the Etihad sponsorship was broadly OK in terms of value, the problem would have been solved. And if we had to write down some of the others by a few million, it only meant we failed FFP by a few more million than we actually did.

I agree we would be stupid to do so and I agree with what you say in relation to the emails but I am not sure they could go after us as much as a two year ban even if we had done this because the money would still be fair value and on behalf of ETihad for money we where owed it would just have come from someone else’s let’s say Stoke where owed 5 million by bet 365 for stadium sponsorship but they had financial difficulty so so Coates paid it he owns both would anyone give a fxxx no interesting aside has anyone been consider related party for FFP ? Never get mentioned in the media but I can think of lots of examples that I might think might be don’t know if they are in the accounts I.e the German clubs Stoke Juventus Newcastle with Sports Direct

 

[Shaggy]

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

We are relaxed about the CAS case being via video link if needs be.

I want to draw a positive from that, as surely it is always better to see the whites of their eyes.

 

[Aytoun]

Thanks P_B for your response. It is pretty much what my guess would have been based on previous articles from these people. I was tempted to rejoin but it seems they are still the same old, same old.

 

[nmc]

Such funding is common: Arse and Emirates: every Russian club sponsored by companies that are either in receipt of gov funds, are nationalized, or reassured that the gov will step in: PSG and Qatar 'world branding' etc etc.

Chevrolet had US government funding until 2014 (I think) so that straddles certainly the time when they agreed their deal with United - which was 2012, Cant see UEFA having any issues with that deal - despite General Motors admitting the deal was overvalued !

 

[Gordyola]

They're masking the fact that gross indebtedness hasn't decreased though. It's probably increased in fact. So clubs may be better able to support their debt but that's because revenues, profitability and therefore equity has increased. FFP still doesn't outlaw or restrict leveraged buyouts.

Now that the clubs’ income has been hit the service of the debt will be more difficult, thus exposing how inadequate FFP is in protecting clubs from financial problems

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

Thanks for posting this. It answers a couple of questions I've had since we appealed. The two paragraphs above I find the most interesting.

Unless I'm misinterpreting it, the first suggests that we aren't restricted to just the grounds we initially appealed on. That we could, if so minded, include the fact that FFP, itself, is a bogus construct used to prevent investment. This would dovetail nicely with the noises coming out of UEFA concerning "modernising" FFP and Wenger's Damascene conversion to our view of FFP.

Secondly, witnesses. The transition from being an investigator with the various powers that involves and making a written witness statement, to standing in the box giving oral evidence before a Court whilst being cross-examined by top QC cannot be underestimated. Believe me, there is nowhere to hide in the witness box notwithstanding that the pressure is eased slightly by not being in an actual Courtroom. We all saw Platini eviscerated by Martin Samuel in a voluntary interview. Multiply that by 50 and you'll have some idea of the pressure the UEFA witnesses will be under when Lord Pannick starts doing his stuff. God, I wish I could be a fly on the wall for this hearing.

Should be serialised as an "All or Nothing" sequel...............