There were two issues about Etihad; was it a related party and, if so, was the deal fair value. The latter only came into play if the former was true. UEFA's view, via PWC, was that Etihad was a related party but that the deal was fair value. We, along with our auditors BDO, disputed the view of Etihad as a related party but if the deal was fair value then that's irrelevant to a large degree.
However the key issue is who was funding Etihad if they weren't providing the funding directly and wholly out of their own funds. ADUG are definitely a related party as they are our ultimate owners via CFG. So if any of the money that's come from Etihad has come from ADUG then that would be classed as hidden owner investment and would well see us in an extremely vulnerable position. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that it hasn't, as ADUG would be stupid to do it that way. The money for the Etihad sponsorship came from the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. This came out as part of a case that's been running against the Gulf airlines accusing them of accepting state aid and it's in the public domain. As had been said on here ' His Highness' refers to Sheikh Mohammed (MBZ) not Sheikh Mansour.
That opens up a completely different set of calculations and I'd say that leaves us technically in the clear in terms of FFP although there's a new set of questions about disguised ownership and influence. This is a situation that UEFA simply didn't foresee; Abramovich funded Chelsea directly (at leat we assume he did) and Qatar openly did the same for PSG. We came up with a much more subtle model of a personal owner but one who clearly had the full backing of the state. Good luck with that UEFA.