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

[VOOMER]

Perhaps Prestwhich is best to answer this but either way looks bad for us surely it has to be Etihad to MCFC no ADUG shareholder or ADUG or it’s inflated or related party or perhaps or both

Sniff Sniff

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The ADUG sole shareholder is Sheikh Mansour., according to City's accounts. So on the surface that could be seen as damning I guess. But as I've said ad nauseas, it's all about context.

I spoke to two high profile football finance commentators about those articles. One was Kieran Maguire of Liverpool University (who's a Brighton lad not a scouser). Him and Swiss Ramble are the two people people I look up to when it comes to football financial stuff. His considered view was that there was no smoking gun in those articles. I also spoke to David Conn, who isn't exactly known for going out on a limb to defend City, despite being a fan. His view about the articles was "So what?". In other words, there was nothing particularly sensational in them. Again, no smoking gun.

Now think about it. Simon Pearce's reply could have been that smoking gun if it confirmed the money was coming from ADUG. Yet was that reply shown in the article? It wasn't that I can recall. And if it was, it certainly wasn't a smoking gun. Maybe his reply said something like "The money isn't coming from ADUG. It's coming from Etihad via the Executive Council so that's not our problem". Or something else that didn't incriminate us.

The fact they didn't print it suggests that not only did it really not help their case but possibly strengthened ours. So maybe that reply is part of our defence to this.

Edit: just seen Paladin's answer, which is somewhat less wordy than mine but says the same thing.

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

 

[richards30]

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

that was khaldoon that allegedly said that wasn’t it?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

that was khaldoon that allegedly said that wasn’t it?

Absolutely not. He is not involved in any of the stolen correspondence.

Bareda, Chullimas and Pearce.

As I say, one troubling response was 'we can do what we want'

Can't recall the context.

 

[KS55]

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

That response was in answer to a diff question, something like "can we book this as received on such a date?". I don't know if we are accused formally of messing with timings.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Wasn't Pearce's response, "We can do what we want"

I certainly recall words such as that being used, but can't recall the context or what it was attributed to?

The question that was the answer to was about whether we could amend the amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements. Without knowing the full story, if we agree a deal with a sponsor to pay us £100m over 10 years, it really doesn't matter if we get it as 10 x £10m annual payments or in other, irregular amounts, as long as we record it properly.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That response was in answer to a diff question, something like "can we book this as received on such a date?". I don't know if we are accused formally of messing with timings.

You are correct, I do recall that now.

With regards backdating monies.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The question that was the answer to was about whether we could amend the amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements. Without knowing the full story, if we agree a deal with a sponsor to pay us £100m over 10 years, it really doesn't matter if we get it as 10 x £10m annual payments or in other, irregular amounts, as long as we record it properly.

Thanks mate. It certainly opens us up to more questioning, however?

If we are saying the EC have been forced to meet Etihad's shortfall obligations in part, it doesn't dovetail too well if it also demonstrates we can simply make a call for Etihad cash to be backdated or front loaded?

 

[dickie davies]

The question that was the answer to was about whether we could amend the amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements. Without knowing the full story, if we agree a deal with a sponsor to pay us £100m over 10 years, it really doesn't matter if we get it as 10 x £10m annual payments or in other, irregular amounts, as long as we record it properly.

So are you saying it's legitimate to receive £10m from a sponsor, but if we're making a profit already and don't need the dosh that financial year, we could record it as £2m and record the balance of 8 the following year?

 

[Nightmare Walking]

If someone offers you a deal and you are guilty, then you snatch their hands off. The fact we refused any such deal and seem willing to fight to the end, speaks absolute volumes to me.