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

[Stockton Heath Blue]

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.

Or put simply, there's no point trying to argue with stupid!

 

[George Hannah]

It's on the way right?

if you lose the opening bit about the tonal shortcomings of our directors, absolutely - a triumphant return to the fold ;)

 

[slbsn]

if you lose the opening bit about the tonal shortcomings of our directors, absolutely - a triumphant return to the fold ;)

Thing is, it needs to be said. People (even top people) don't get everything right.

 

[George Hannah]

Thing is, it needs to be said. People (even top people) don't get everything right.

Seriously, thanks for saying it so well and for the rest of your analysis and advice. I hope they heed it.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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."

Another thing that I mentioned a few days ago in another thread, that had slipped my mind, was that there was an imperative need to get as much revenue as possible in to the 2013 financial year as we thought we could use the 2012 wages provision.

After that, with the reduced loss targets as part of the sanctions, there was much less need to get as much money as possible in. So it should have been only those 2013 accounts that were a bit messy.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

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/

In common with many City fans I have read your two pieces with great interest and thank you for sharing your insight and analysis with us. I cannot understand how even UEFA can have pushed this matter to this point and I wonder if you could speculate in a third piece on what UEFA's grounds might be. I also note that Ferran told us clearly and unambiguously that UEFA's allegations were "simply not true" and that our evidence to this effect is "irrefutable". Could uo speculate again on what our evidence might be?

 

[slbsn]

In common with many City fans I have read your two pieces with great interest and thank you for sharing your insight and analysis with us. I cannot understand how even UEFA can have pushed this matter to this point and I wonder if you could speculate in a third piece on what UEFA's grounds might be. I also note that Ferran told us clearly and unambiguously that UEFA's allegations were "simply not true" and that our evidence to this effect is "irrefutable". Could uo speculate again on what our evidence might be?

I will write more as the matter unfolds. In simple terms: these documents would build the picture to strong evidence.

1. Sponsorship agreement between Etihad and Manchester City;
2. Audited accounts for the relevant year;
3. BDO audit committee observations and report document covering key areas of review and materiality;
4. Management representation letters to BDO;
5. Relevant invoices from Manchester City to Etihad;
6. Bank statements showing the deposit from Etihad to Manchester City in the sums referred to in the sponsorship agreement;
7. Evidence of third party offers in excess of the Etihad sponsorship to verify the commercial rates being charged to Etihad (ie even if they were related - fair value was higher than or around what Etihad are paying);
8. Copy of PwC Report to UEFA showing the amounts disputed even before the settlement;
9. List of documents provided to PwC before the release from the settlement agreement in April 2017.

City are wrong to use the term "irrefutable" in circumstances where the Adjudicatory Chamber has, indeed, refuted the evidence.

 

[petrusha]

City are wrong to use the term "irrefutable" in circumstances where the Adjudicatory Chamber has, indeed, refuted the evidence.

Or has it? It's rejected the evidence, presumably purporting to refute it, but if the refutation were universally accepted, we wouldn't be getting ready to go to the CAS.

 

[slbsn]

Or has it? It's rejected the evidence, presumably purporting to refute it, but if the refutation were universally accepted, we wouldn't be getting ready to go to the CAS.

Semantics, of course. Very few things are "irrefutable" and when you send the Pearce email you make it almost to claim anything is on the relevant topic!

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I will write more as the matter unfolds. In simple terms: these documents would build the picture to strong evidence.

1. Sponsorship agreement between Etihad and Manchester City;
2. Audited accounts for the relevant year;
3. BDO audit committee observations and report document covering key areas of review and materiality;
4. Management representation letters to BDO;
5. Relevant invoices from Manchester City to Etihad;
6. Bank statements showing the deposit from Etihad to Manchester City in the sums referred to in the sponsorship agreement;
7. Evidence of third party offers in excess of the Etihad sponsorship to verify the commercial rates being charged to Etihad (ie even if they were related - fair value was higher than or around what Etihad are paying);
8. Copy of PwC Report to UEFA showing the amounts disputed even before the settlement;
9. List of documents provided to PwC before the release from the settlement agreement in April 2017.

City are wrong to use the term "irrefutable" in circumstances where the Adjudicatory Chamber has, indeed, refuted the evidence.

Thanks for your prompt reply. Am I right in thinking that many of these documents would have been submitted to UEFA before the settlement agreement of 2014 and others before we exited the settlement regime and that this lends support to the view that UEFA must be relying on the stolen emails to question the accuracy/credibility of some of these documents? These emails cannot have been subjected to anything like the examination/analysis as the documents listed above, even if they are admissible. UEFA appears to be on a collision course not only with the club but with multinational companies and with companies on which the integrity and honesty of business relies and all on some emails which appear be of no significance! This seems to be a view so extreme that I would be grateful for your comments - and any further thoughts as to why UEFA have pushed it so far.