No, they found us guilty of failing FFP and fined us accordingly. However, the issue now is that they made that original decision based on the assumption that Etihad, Aabar et al, were “legitimate” (for want of a better word) sponsors fronting up their own money, when in fact about 4/5ths of that sponsorship money was being covered by His Highness. The argument is that had they had been aware of this, they would have hit us with a different (and presumably more draconian) punishment.
This ends one way now. I have no doubt that the intention is to ban us - and for a lot longer than a year - but the decision to make that move rests on whether they then think they have the law on their side when it comes to FFP, because City would unquestionably then challenge its legality and make a suitably eye watering claim for damages. Ball’s in their court (no pun intended). I just hope that we have been as devious as they have in terms of “obtaining” incriminating evidence.....
Fixed that for you mate. If anyone is doing any brainwashing it's that wanker Harris. He proves just how easy it is to get so many lemmings swallowing his bullshit when you give clueless wankers a platform to spout their shite on social media. To date, I've never seen that whopper go into all the intricacies of the actual regs whereas PB does, yet the wanker claims to be some kind of expert on the subject. Plenty of City fans have a bigger understanding of FFP than that c*nt ever will.
No, they found us guilty of failing FFP and fined us accordingly. However, the issue now is that they made that original decision based on the assumption that Etihad, Aabar et al, were “legitimate” (for want of a better word) sponsors fronting up their own money, when in fact about 4/5ths of that sponsorship money was being covered by His Highness. The argument is that had they had been aware of this, they would have hit us with a different (and presumably more draconian) punishment.
This ends one way now. I have no doubt that the intention is to ban us - and for a lot longer than a year - but the decision to make that move rests on whether they then think they have the law on their side when it comes to FFP, because City would unquestionably then challenge its legality and make a suitably eye watering claim for damages. Ball’s in their court (no pun intended). I just hope that we have been as devious as they have in terms of “obtaining” incriminating evidence.....
I wonder if the influence of a nation state to another may have an influence on this?
Last week the DM online football page led with the story that City could be banned from the Champions League following more Der Spiegel allegations. Today there's no mention of the arrest and extradition of Rui Pinto who is accused of extortion, illegally obtaining documention by hacking emails and hacking two accounts in the Cayman Islands which purely coincidentally resulted in 268,000 Euros ending up in his bank account. Or that the Spanish and French police, as well as the Portuguese, also want him extradited to them. I'm sure it's just an oversight.
Not having a pop and not suggesting you're wrong that it might end in a ban but you always seem to post an overly negative viewpoint regarding this topic. It's been explained that it's none of UEFA's business where a sponsor's money comes from. It's just up to UEFA to decide which deals are related/not related party transactions, and a fair value is then applied to those that are considered to be related party transactions. If the state of Abu Dhabi wants to bail out those companies with a cash injection to meet their financial obligations then they have every right to and there's nothing wrong with that, plus Etihad have killed dead the allegations. In any case, the suggestion that the money has come from our owner is completely and utterly unproven and it's been pointed out that His Highness doesn't refer to Sheikh Mansour.
Now it's entirely possible of course that given UEFA's previous for shifting the goalposts on FFP and their ongoing shifting of the goalposts regarding PSG's main sponsorship deal that they could end up slapping us with a ban when it's not even warranted but they'd be risking a huge shitstorm if they went down that route. Let's also not forget that there's a possible whole new narrative developing too with the arrest and extradition of the hacker himself, who appears to have been doing this not out of the goodness of his own heart, but to profit from it through extortion, blackmail, and possibly even brown envelopes from those with an agenda against our club.
Not having a pop and not suggesting you're wrong that it might end in a ban but you always seem to post an overly negative viewpoint regarding this topic. It's been explained that it's none of UEFA's business where a sponsor's money comes from. It's just up to UEFA to decide which deals are related/not related party transactions, and a fair value is then applied to those that are considered to be related party transactions. If the state of Abu Dhabi wants to bail out those companies with a cash injection to meet their financial obligations then they have every right to and there's nothing wrong with that, plus Etihad have killed dead the allegations. In any case, the suggestion that the money has come from our owner is completely and utterly unproven and it's been pointed out that His Highness doesn't refer to Sheikh Mansour.
Now it's entirely possible of course that given UEFA's previous for shifting the goalposts on FFP and their ongoing shifting of the goalposts regarding PSG's main sponsorship deal that they could end up slapping us with a ban when it's not even warranted but they'd be risking a huge shitstorm if they went down that route. Let's also not forget that there's a possible whole new narrative developing too with the arrest and extradition of the hacker himself, who appears to have been doing this not out of the goodness of his own heart, but to profit from it through extortion, blackmail, and possibly even brown envelopes from those with an agenda against our club.
↑like i said before stolen information is worthless by a hacker in a court of law ?? a
The whole thing about who His Highness refers to in the documents published is very interesting: was it an error in etiquette or not? If it refers to the ruler of AD supporting his businesses, it goes beyond UEFA's remit, IMO.
Not having a pop and not suggesting you're wrong that it might end in a ban but you always seem to post an overly negative viewpoint regarding this topic. It's been explained that it's none of UEFA's business where a sponsor's money comes from. It's just up to UEFA to decide which deals are related/not related party transactions, and a fair value is then applied to those that are considered to be related party transactions. If the state of Abu Dhabi wants to bail out those companies with a cash injection to meet their financial obligations then they have every right to and there's nothing wrong with that, plus Etihad have killed dead the allegations. In any case, the suggestion that the money has come from our owner is completely and utterly unproven and it's been pointed out that His Highness doesn't refer to Sheikh Mansour.
Now it's entirely possible of course that given UEFA's previous for shifting the goalposts on FFP and their ongoing shifting of the goalposts regarding PSG's main sponsorship deal that they could end up slapping us with a ban when it's not even warranted but they'd be risking a huge shitstorm if they went down that route. Let's also not forget that there's a possible whole new narrative developing too with the arrest and extradition of the hacker himself, who appears to have been doing this not out of the goodness of his own heart, but to profit from it through extortion, blackmail, and possibly even brown envelopes from those with an agenda against our club.