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

Sol Campbell on talkshite the other day was proclaiming that Chelsea had
a transfer ban imposed on them by fUEFA, and they had done a lot less than City. He is really stupid, one he doesn’t know what City have supposed to have ‘done’ and two he should know that it is only FIFA that can impose transfer bans. He also said that City had narrowly avoided a Champions League ban at CAS, which is not true at all, City battered UEFA at CAS everybody knows that. These so called experts that they have on their poxy channel should at least be informed before they talk about our club.
Eastmanc

We fans know nothing in comparison to Campbell who has schooled readers for many years about his intellectual prowess. Remember when he was rejected for the Oxford job he said "I can't believe some people, I'm one of the greatest minds in football ……..’
 
Sol Campbell on talkshite the other day was proclaiming that Chelsea had
a transfer ban imposed on them by fUEFA, and they had done a lot less than City. He is really stupid, one he doesn’t know what City have supposed to have ‘done’ and two he should know that it is only FIFA that can impose transfer bans. He also said that City had narrowly avoided a Champions League ban at CAS, which is not true at all, City battered UEFA at CAS everybody knows that. These so called experts that they have on their poxy channel should at least be informed before they talk about our club.
being diverse in thought is not why he's on there.
 
Eastmanc

We fans know nothing in comparison to Campbell who has schooled readers for many years about his intellectual prowess. Remember when he was rejected for the Oxford job he said "I can't believe some people, I'm one of the greatest minds in football ……..’
He does have inflated opinion of his own intelligence. Some of the stuff he was coming out with was just factually wrong.
 
This is what boils my piss about the way the media report this. Tony Evans made a comment on Twitter a few days ago in response to (another) schooling from Prestwich Blue. "You obviously know know more than me and the lawyers I've spoken to", now I know he was trying to be flippant but the irony is, he's correct but won't admit it, PB, Stefan and one or two others, individually and definitely collectively, have got the knowledge and experience and have taken the time to research and fully understand the weird and wonderful intricacies of FFP. Evans, the Harris's and the rest of the WhatsApp twats claim to be serious, professional journalists. I get that they probably haven't got the time and definitely haven't got the brains to understand FFP and the investigation, I certainly haven't, so why not engage professionally, courteously and impartially with a group of people who clearly do know their onions? That's obviously a rhetorical question because we all know the answer, and it's why we, as fans, scream "agenda" when they write their predictable diatribes with nothing to substantiate any of their allegations. If there are any serious journalists out there in the msm who aren't afraid to go against the tide then it would be brilliant if they would use the expert knowledge that's here for them (for a small remuneration of course guys!)
Actually a lot of City's critics seem to have no formal journalistic background at all. Castles for example is essentially a blogger and Nick Harris a freelance writer. That's probably why they don't seem to understand the basic concepts of impartiality and media law. It says a lot about the current state of the media industry that they actually get some of their material published outside their own twitter feeds.
I actually have no problem with people publishing stories about City's legal case with the PL. It is a legitimate story. My issue is that coverage should be fair, balanced, and accurate and should explain the full context. Virtually no one reported that BOTH City and the PL had tried to prevent publication of their legal discussions. But this is a key element that affects the tone of the whole story.
We still don't know for example how Javier Tebas knew that this case "wasn't over" just a week before the latest legal documents were released. I don't believe he was guessing. One of his fellow UEFA Exec members must have told him and you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to know which one. You can be certain that Khaldoon knows though, just as he did throughout the CAS case.
 
It's not ignorance. it's smear. There is no value in arguing with these people. Their aim is merely to throw mud. You want to sling mud with them, go ahead. It's not an argument you can win, because it's enough for them that there is mud flying.
Exactly. Marvin.
The madia generally argued and concluded our obvious guilt at the CAS judgment yet City won.
Since then the media still refuses to actually use and understand why we won.

Many thanks to all our great legal researchers and lawyers who give credibility not just gut feelings to their opinions.
 
I'll try. Under FFP, an owner can put in funds to cover a small amount of losses or they can put in funds via sponsorships.

Sheikh Mansour could put a billion pounds in our bank account but we can only spend that money in line with our revenue, and that billion pounds isn't classed as revenue as it goes on our balance sheet. However ADUG could sponsor us for a billion pounds, and that would be revenue, as it would appear on the Profit and Loss account.

FFP seeks to stop this and says that any entity defined as a related party (which is an established accounting concept) can only introduce sponsorship revenue if that contract represents fair market value. That means if it's what an unrelated third party would pay. The going rate for shirt sponsorships is now probably around £40-45m for clubs in our position so if ADUG sponsored us for £100m, that wouldn't be regarded as fair market value. Or if it paid us that for a full page advert in the programme.

To be precise, they could do that (sponsor our shirt for £100m a year) but we'd have to disregard a lot of that for FFP purposes. UEFA might only allow us to recognise £45m of that £100m as revenue, although it'd still be sat in our bank account. That happened with PSG and Qatar, where they had to disregard most of the €200m that Qatar put in as sponsorship.

If, however, the entity sponsoring us isn't classed as a related party, there is no concept of fair market value and they can pay us whatever they like. City (and our auditors) do not regard Etihad as a related party and, even if it was, the sponsorship was generally regarded (by UEFA and CAS) as representing fair value. But there's more.

The whole point of UEFA's charges, and the CAS case, was that Etihad was only paying a small part of their sponsorship and that the bulk of the money was coming from someone else. UEFA (or the CFCB to be precise) felt it was ADUG, whereas the CAS hearing showed it came from central funds supplied by the Executive Affairs Authority to Etihad (which I'd discovered some years ago). EAA isn't a related party to City so in that case, it didn't matter where Etihad got their money from. They paid us a certain amount and they got commercial exposure commensurate with what they paid.

If, on the other hand, CAS had found that ADUG had routed money into City via Etihad, it's 99% certain we would have been found to have contravened FFP and the ban would almost certainly have been upheld. Stefan, for all the brilliant work he's done on the legal side of this, is wrong to say that it didn't matter where those additional funds came from. It was quite simply the core issue at the heart of the CFCB's charges and the CAS hearing.

It mattered very much in fact. ADUG = ban, not ADUG = no ban.

Why does Stefan disagree with you what’s his side of the argument
 
Why does Stefan disagree with you what’s his side of the argument
That it doesn't matter if ADUG provided the money to Etihad, as long as Etihad met the sponsorship contract terms and they were reasonable. So if the money goe ADUG --> Etihad --> City, he's claiming that's fine.

My view is that this would be seen as disguised equity investment and clearly contrary to FFP. Fortunately we never had to test that disagreement though.
 
I'll try. Under FFP, an owner can put in funds to cover a small amount of losses or they can put in funds via sponsorships.

Sheikh Mansour could put a billion pounds in our bank account but we can only spend that money in line with our revenue, and that billion pounds isn't classed as revenue as it goes on our balance sheet. However ADUG could sponsor us for a billion pounds, and that would be revenue, as it would appear on the Profit and Loss account.

FFP seeks to stop this and says that any entity defined as a related party (which is an established accounting concept) can only introduce sponsorship revenue if that contract represents fair market value. That means if it's what an unrelated third party would pay. The going rate for shirt sponsorships is now probably around £40-45m for clubs in our position so if ADUG sponsored us for £100m, that wouldn't be regarded as fair market value. Or if it paid us that for a full page advert in the programme.

To be precise, they could do that (sponsor our shirt for £100m a year) but we'd have to disregard a lot of that for FFP purposes. UEFA might only allow us to recognise £45m of that £100m as revenue, although it'd still be sat in our bank account. That happened with PSG and Qatar, where they had to disregard most of the €200m that Qatar put in as sponsorship.

If, however, the entity sponsoring us isn't classed as a related party, there is no concept of fair market value and they can pay us whatever they like. City (and our auditors) do not regard Etihad as a related party and, even if it was, the sponsorship was generally regarded (by UEFA and CAS) as representing fair value. But there's more.

The whole point of UEFA's charges, and the CAS case, was that Etihad was only paying a small part of their sponsorship and that the bulk of the money was coming from someone else. UEFA (or the CFCB to be precise) felt it was ADUG, whereas the CAS hearing showed it came from central funds supplied by the Executive Affairs Authority to Etihad (which I'd discovered some years ago). EAA isn't a related party to City so in that case, it didn't matter where Etihad got their money from. They paid us a certain amount and they got commercial exposure commensurate with what they paid.

If, on the other hand, CAS had found that ADUG had routed money into City via Etihad, it's 99% certain we would have been found to have contravened FFP and the ban would almost certainly have been upheld. Stefan, for all the brilliant work he's done on the legal side of this, is wrong to say that it didn't matter where those additional funds came from. It was quite simply the core issue at the heart of the CFCB's charges and the CAS hearing.

It mattered very much in fact. ADUG = ban, not ADUG = no ban.
Keep going PB your insight and patient reminders are much appreciated. Some posters could re-read earlier threads and posts before asking their questions - the answer to many are available. Maybe you could create a MCFC / FFP accredited learning module and it could become an entry requirement for membership on BM?
Maybe our ‘journalist‘ friends could take it.
 

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.