CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

petrusha said:
One of the problems with a lot of these journalists, including Tony Evans, is that they seem unable to get their heads round the fact that it's quite possible for City to take money from publicly-owned Abu Dhabi companies and remain within the FFP rules. And, despite claims of a "smoking gun" proving the club to be in breach of the rules, there's no such thing. There's lots of evidence that we were seeking to circumvent rules, but that's a different matter. Every day all around the globe, perfectly reputable companies look for ways to pursue their business objectives in ways that don't breach the letter of inconvenient regulatory regimes.

City have done a number of things to this end that our critics disapprove of, as they're perfectly entitled to. We tried to play fast and loose with the concept of related-party transactions and attempted dodges with regard to image rights, for instance. However, those matters were dealt with in the settlement agreement back in 2014. And while some might view our receiving money from state companies in the UAE as breaching the spirit of the rules, this is a bullshit concept that counts for sweet fuck all in the real world. If UEFA or the PL want their rules to ban that kind of sponsorship, draft them so that they expressly say that. Otherwise, we're entitled to find whatever workarounds the current text of the rules allows.

So far, we can ascertain from the CAS hearing that our accounting records indicate we've done so successfully. No material in the public domain, including the latest Nick Harris damp squib, actually contradicts that. No information available at present indicates a sensible basis for us to be charged, but we're subjected to a febrile and hysterical media debate that pays no regard to normal standards of evidence or proof. With rival clubs no doubt egging the investigators on in the background, the biggest threat City have to deal with is the potential reluctance of the PL to drop the case for PR reasons.

In other words, there's a risk that the PL will act not on the basis of a rational analysis of the totality of the case, but instead out of a fear of attracting specious criticism for "letting City get away with it". The sad thing from our point of view is that any such criticism would come from people who have no more understanding of the processes and issues involved than they have of the intricacies of brain surgery - and that includes Nick Harris. If (quite a big 'if', regrettably) the PL has integrity and balls, our enemies won't be allowed to prevail.

EDIT - Just to add: City didn't accept that the matters covered in the settlement agreement constituted breaches of the rules. Most of what we tried to do was via methods commonly used in international non-football businesses, often within international groups of companies (and we're part of one). Had these issues been litigated and not settled, it's perfectly feasible that we could have prevailed.
Click to expand...
Spot on. At the end of the day Etihad is a state-funded airline so any sponsorship from them has, at best, come indirectly from the state. But the value of the sponsorship for Citywas independently checked and assessed as being "fair value."
There is no difference to what has happened with Emirates sponsoring Arsenal or Saudi Telecom supporting United. Gazprom are majority owned by the Russian Government and are Chelsea's and UEFA's main sponsors (for the CL). But City are singled out.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Spot on. At the end of the day Etihad is a state-funded airline so any sponsorship from them has, at best, come indirectly from the state. But the value of the sponsorship for Citywas independently checked and assessed as being "fair value."
There is no difference to what has happened with Emirates sponsoring Arsenal or Saudi Telecom supporting United. Gazprom are majority owned by the Russian Government and are Chelsea's and UEFA's main sponsors (for the CL). But City are singled out.
Click to expand...
Juventus shirt sponsorship with Jeep, which increased from €17m to €42m in 2019/20– even though the original deal still had two years to run. Jeep is part of Fiat, which is owned by the Agnelli Family.

Juventus owners..... the Agnelli Family.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Spot on. At the end of the day Etihad is a state-funded airline so any sponsorship from them has, at best, come indirectly from the state. But the value of the sponsorship for Citywas independently checked and assessed as being "fair value."
Click to expand...
This is the salient point. Even if Etihad was a related party, the sponsorship was deemed fair value, even by UEFA. And Etihad got fair value back, in terms of the commercial value they got from that sponsorship. Even if ADUG had put in all that money, it's within the FFP rules.

And if it's not a related party, then as long as the money doesnt originate from ADUG (which it didn't) it's fine.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
This is the salient point. Even if Etihad was a related party, the sponsorship was deemed fair value, even by UEFA. And Etihad got fair value back, in terms of the commercial value they got from that sponsorship. Even if ADUG had put in all that money, it's within the FFP rules.

And if it's not a related party, then as long as the money doesnt originate from ADUG (which it didn't) it's fine.
Click to expand...
Yep. City proved at CAS that it came from central funds. If Gazprom paid some of their sponsorship money to UEFA from central funds, UEFA wouldn’t be arsed, and why should they be?
 
So it seems that the Premier League are flogging a dead horse with this latest "investigation"? They can't be hoping to find something because fishing expeditions are not allowed, even if the believe a whopper is lurking at the bottom? So why are they persisting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.