Note. If owner sponsors co who then sponsors club:Agreed, the notion that sponsorship income of fair value for services performed that comes, directly or indirectly, from a shareholder should be recorded in the signed, audited accounts as equity, not income, is just ludicrous. I am sure we can all quote many clubs where this doesn't happen. There may need to be more disclosures for FFP purposes, but that's nothing to do with the signed, audited accounts.
So I will say this just once more, and then shut up for good, there is no way, in my opinion, from what we know about Etihad and Etisalat from CAS, that either of those affect the true and fair view given by the signed, audited annual accounts. Small issue with how Etisalat was accounted for, but that's it. I doubt the other matters were wrongly accounted for, or are material enough to matter, from the point of view of the signed, audited accounts. The PL may not like it, but that's tough.
We may, or may not, have broken PL rules depending on the source of the funds into Etihad and how it was disclosed to the PL (not that I think Mansour paid the funds into Etihad anyway, this is all hypothetical).
And now ....
View attachment 70753
It could be fraud if we sold off shares at prices that were inflated by heightened revenue and profits due to owner investment/equity funding being disguised tbf. Not sure what dog the PL have in that fight though.No it's not fraud. Its wether the sponsorships were valid as defined by the PL rule book.This is will be down to the interpretation of the panel of lawyers. At CAS the Chairman and CEO of Ethihad Airways swore under the oath the sponsorship was authorised 100% by him.
I think a lot of these questions depend upon wether these things are judged according to the actual law re accounting etc, or just arbitrary PL rules which they have already adjusted during the period stated to drop us in the ffp shit - or a 'pinch' as the chairman put it. If we are judged according to the PL then we might as well be judged by a poll on rawk imho.That's a question I was pondering myself last night. On the one hand, if Etihad paid us £50m, and we recorded £50m revenue, then that's clearly not fraudulent, regardless of the source of Etihad's funds. But if SM gave us all or most of the money, then we'd have presumably broken FFP rules.
This is the point (the source of Etihad funding) that Stefan and me didn't agree on. He argued it didn't matter where the money came from but my view was that it did, as far as FFP was concerned.
Things should be judged by the meaning of the actual words in the rule at the time.I think a lot of these questions depend upon wether these things are judged according to the actual law re accounting etc, or just arbitrary PL rules which they have already adjusted during the period stated to drop us in the ffp shit - or a 'pinch' as the chairman put it. If we are judged according to the PL then we might as well be judged by a poll on rawk imho.
However, if the PL are to make things stick then they will need to substantiate their claims with allegations/ evidence that take this all very much into the legal realm rather than their rapidly made up rules. They will need good legal advice I suspect.
This is one point that bothers me. There will only be one lawyer on the panel, the chairman. The other two cannot be lawyers according to the PL.No it's not fraud. Its wether the sponsorships were valid as defined by the PL rule book.This is will be down to the interpretation of the panel of lawyers. At CAS the Chairman and CEO of Ethihad Airways swore under the oath the sponsorship was authorised 100% by him.
This is one point that bothers me. There will only be one lawyer on the panel, the chairman. The other two cannot be lawyers according to the PL.
Do we know who they are?
SM could just call it a soft loan to Etihad. Seems to be ok direct from Roman to Chelsea so can't see what they'd do us for.It must matter when owner funding is limited. SM Direct to City is owner funding; SM To Etihad to City is legit sponsorship.
That's a question I was pondering myself last night. On the one hand, if Etihad paid us £50m, and we recorded £50m revenue, then that's clearly not fraudulent, regardless of the source of Etihad's funds. But if SM gave us all or most of the money, then we'd have presumably broken FFP rules.
This is the point (the source of Etihad funding) that Stefan and me didn't agree on. He argued it didn't matter where the money came from but my view was that it did, as far as FFP was concerned.
Promise?