ICYMI - Seeing the Wood for FFPs - 2 part analysis (Semi-long reads)

[Gordyola]

I wrote these 2 pieces for 9320. Miguel Delaney hated them which is the best endorsement I can think of. Give them a read if you want a more nuanced, precedent based analysis of the situation.

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/
https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

get stuff Stefan enjoyed the podcast so much I listened twice

Miguel Delaney I imagine a child with his fingers in his ears jumping up and down saying I cant hear when it's anything that disproves his agenda

 

[creditunionhero]

I wrote these 2 pieces for 9320. Miguel Delaney hated them which is the best endorsement I can think of. Give them a read if you want a more nuanced, precedent based analysis of the situation.

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/
https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

I am grateful for the clear information you have provided and I hope that City get the outcome we wish for. I also hope that your views will be reflected by those investigating the club.

 

[Gordyola]

The only difficulty with this stance is that's its nearly impossible to argue with an idiot as they have too much experience in operating at that level.

An argument of sound reasoning based on a logical and chronological timeline backed by the facts of publicised laws & relevant regulatory procedural rules is simply impenetrable to an idiot like Delaney.

When coming across an idiot I always tell them. My mum always said, don't argue with an idiot it is impossible to win, and so on this occasion I'll take her advice

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Great stuff Stefan and thanks for doing it. However one mistake which I'm not sure is yours or Conn's.

Etihad is not part of IPIC, the group chaired by Sheikh Mansour. It's completely separate and Sheikh Mansour has no role in Etihad.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I wrote these 2 pieces for 9320. Miguel Delaney hated them which is the best endorsement I can think of. Give them a read if you want a more nuanced, precedent based analysis of the situation.

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/
https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

I posted a link to the 1st article a few days back with a suitable endorsement for the article and the pods last weekend. So let's just say I think they are excellent and I for one appreciate your efforts and expertise with all this.

I remember the 93.20 pod you did just after the original der spiegel leaks (you briefly referred back to it in the pods last weekend) when you discussed the likelihood that the settlement agreement would be very robust and potentially make it difficult for UEFA in the event of an investigation. I don't recall anyone else saying this at the time or since in the media etc.

Yet here we are over a year later and you continue to state it is a fundamental element of the CAS appeal (as obviously evidenced in the CAS document). Kudos to you in all this but is exasperating it is still not being picked up by the media yet it is ridiculously important.

Get back on twitter Stefan :)

 

[projectriver]

Great stuff Stefan and thanks for doing it. However one mistake which I'm not sure is yours or Conn's.

Etihad is not part of IPIC, the group chaired by Sheikh Mansour. It's completely separate and Sheikh Mansour has no role in Etihad.

Not my view - my view is irrelevant!

UEFA/PwC's mistake/assumption according to Conn: "In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline."

 

[projectriver]

I posted a link to the 1st article a few days back with a suitable endorsement for the article and the pods last weekend. So let's just say I think they are excellent and I for one appreciate your efforts and expertise with all this.

I remember the 93.20 pod you did just after the original der spiegel leaks (you briefly referred back to it in the pods last weekend) when you discussed the likelihood that the settlement agreement would be very robust and potentially make it difficult for UEFA in the event of an investigation. I don't recall anyone else saying this at the time or since in the media etc.

Yet here we are over a year later and you continue to state it is a fundamental element of the CAS appeal (as obviously evidenced in the CAS document). Kudos to you in all this but is exasperating it is still not being picked up by the media yet it is ridiculously important.

Get back on twitter Stefan :)

Cheers. Decided to come off Twitter - its toxic and not good for mental health generally (and that was before the FFP ban).

 

[George Hannah]

I wrote these 2 pieces for 9320. Miguel Delaney hated them which is the best endorsement I can think of. Give them a read if you want a more nuanced, precedent based analysis of the situation.

https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/
https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

Tasty stuff, have you had your invitation to a long week-end in the Emirates Palace Hotel with complimentary cigars in the Caviar Bar yet ? ;)

 

[projectriver]

Tasty stuff, have you had your invitation to a long week-end in the Emirates Palace Hotel with complimemtary cigars in the Caviar Bar yet ? ;)

It's on the way right?

 

[projectriver]

Not my view - my view is irrelevant!

UEFA/PwC's mistake/assumption according to Conn: "In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline."

Bit more on this. I see this is positive to City's case. It means that UEFA viewed Etihad on the assumption of the worst case (ie re-evaluated for fair value as a related contract). In addition, Conn says: "In the ultimate settlement agreed with Uefa City committed “not to seek to improve” the value of two of the secondary sponsorships, which were not named, and Uefa is thought to have agreed not to press the argument that the companies are related."

In the settlement regime (ie the checks for 2015 and 2016) it sounds as if the settlement agreement specifically said that City would be assessed on certain bases in respect of Etihad. I would assert that regime can't now be unwound for a different analysis. It formed a central part of the agreed regime between the parties.