PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
There are lots of HH's in Abu Dhabi but even if it was Mansour, the email said "HH will arrange funding", not "HH will provide the funding" or "It will be funded by HH via ADUG".

So Sheikh Mansour or one of his staff could pick up the phone, ring another HH and arrange for the Executive Council to provide the funding to Etihad. But even in the most extreme case, where SM clearly provided the additional funding from ADUG, as long as Etihad were getting full value for the money, and the sponsorship was seen as fair value (which CAS said it was) then even that might not be a problem, as owners are allowed to sponsor clubs under FFP rules. So in that last scenario, which Stefan and me disagreed slightly on, I'd say he was more likely to be right. I always said that if we agreed Etihad was a related party, then there's nothing UEFA could have done.
Click to expand...
Yes. I wasn’t suggesting that we had done anything wrong, merely that the insistence that HH could not be Mansour sounded a bit weak. As you point out, it was not necessary anyway.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There are lots of HH's in Abu Dhabi but even if it was Mansour, the email said "HH will arrange funding", not "HH will provide the funding" or "It will be funded by HH via ADUG".

So Sheikh Mansour or one of his staff could pick up the phone, ring another HH and arrange for the Executive Council to provide the funding to Etihad. But even in the most extreme case, where SM clearly provided the additional funding from ADUG, as long as Etihad were getting full value for the money, and the sponsorship was seen as fair value (which CAS said it was) then even that might not be a problem, as owners are allowed to sponsor clubs under FFP rules. So in that last scenario, which Stefan and me disagreed slightly on, I'd say he was more likely to be right. I always said that if we agreed Etihad was a related party, then there's nothing UEFA could have done.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There are lots of HH's in Abu Dhabi but even if it was Mansour, the email said "HH will arrange funding", not "HH will provide the funding" or "It will be funded by HH via ADUG".

So Sheikh Mansour or one of his staff could pick up the phone, ring another HH and arrange for the Executive Council to provide the funding to Etihad. But even in the most extreme case, where SM clearly provided the additional funding from ADUG, as long as Etihad were getting full value for the money, and the sponsorship was seen as fair value (which CAS said it was) then even that might not be a problem, as owners are allowed to sponsor clubs under FFP rules. So in that last scenario, which Stefan and me disagreed slightly on, I'd say he was more likely to be right. I always said that if we agreed Etihad was a related party, then there's nothing UEFA could have done.
Click to expand...
On the first paragraph, that's a very good point. And if SM was arranging the funding in the way you suggest by getting in touch with the relevant people then that's perfectly understandable. After all, he is the owner and is best placed out of everyone within the club to make that phone call.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
You are rearing the ugly prospect of PL rules clashing with UEFA rules. We agreed with UEFA to follow a certain course of action but if it is part of the PL case that that action was incorrect, we have a right to do on our hands.
The newPL rules on owner funding differ from UEFA rules.
Click to expand...
It’s a right mess as you say.

I think Premier league are in a right mess here.

If they take issue with the Etihad deal based on the emails.

If it happened that the Sheik funded some of the sponsorship they would probably be right in saying that this should be declared that not sure how though.

From conversations by people more expert than me on here related party is a precise legal term that has been copied by UEFA and the Premier League that has nothing to do with this sort of thing but is about ownership and control the Sheik does not own or control Etihad.

However if it happened it would seem like in affect it was related party a non related party would not bump up sponsorship via an owner

But regardless of what we did and what we should have said about what we did the sponsorship was fair / market value. I don’t see how the Premier League can know something else happened. They would have to getting info out of Etihad who they have no jurisdiction over and would have to call the Sheik other executives at CFG and Etihad liars at CAS and perhaps even auditors

I have probably repeated what I said before and what’s been said by others but I wanted to respond to your post it’s all very interesting
 
Sonic Temple said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Sports News | Latest News, Photos & Videos | Daily Mail Online

Explore MailOnline's latest sport news including football, F1, rugby, NFL and more! Sign up for newsletters to get breaking news delivered to your inbox.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

I see that fat slug Tebas is spouting his shite about us again
Click to expand...
He comes across as very sad and embittered. Spouting out the same old dross that has already been dealt with via CAS. However, he does make one relevant point. Why have the PL taken so long on this? So, at least briefly, he has shown some sanity.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There are lots of HH's in Abu Dhabi but even if it was Mansour, the email said "HH will arrange funding", not "HH will provide the funding" or "It will be funded by HH via ADUG".

So Sheikh Mansour or one of his staff could pick up the phone, ring another HH and arrange for the Executive Council to provide the funding to Etihad. But even in the most extreme case, where SM clearly provided the additional funding from ADUG, as long as Etihad were getting full value for the money, and the sponsorship was seen as fair value (which CAS said it was) then even that might not be a problem, as owners are allowed to sponsor clubs under FFP rules. So in that last scenario, which Stefan and me disagreed slightly on, I'd say he was more likely to be right. I always said that if we agreed Etihad was a related party, then there's nothing UEFA could have done.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, you're probably right that, if we'd asserted that Etihad was a related party, it wouldn't have mattered if Mansour was funding

UEFA maintained that Mansour had funded most of the Etihad sponsorship, and, despite Etihad having clearly received the sponsorship services under the agreement with City and the sponsorship fee being accepted by their specialist advisers as being of a fair value, saw fit to impose a 2-year ban on us and fine us EUR 30 million. For them, Mansour being involved at all in paying the Etihad sponsorship on its own was sufficient to prove our guilt and justify that swingeing sanction.

It seems ridiculous that a contract under which services are actually being performed at a fair fee can effectively be claimed, as UEFA did, to be fraudulent. I maintain that if City had wanted to devise a dishonest scheme for Mansour to funnel money into the club, they'd have done it much better than was alleged. It wouldn't be hard for the Abu Dhabi state to provide the finance and for Mansour to square it with them through ostensibly unrelated lawful means if that were the objective here.

The truth, as you've regularly pointed out, is that the Open Skies case in the States showed that it was the Abu Dhabi state that was financing the sponsorship. The powers that be over there no doubt think it reflects well on them if City do well, and want Etihad to benefit from the exposure created by a sponsorship of a prominent team in the domestic sporting competition that enjoys the greatest global popularity.

Finally, one more thing to note. Our detractors constantly parrot that we can afford the best lawyers so can get off when we go to arbitration to challenge sanctions against us. Don't these idiots ever take time to reflect that maybe if we can afford top lawyers, we employ some to ensure that we act within the letter of the rules and thus have strong chances of prevailing when we come before impartial authorities as opposed to those that are out to nail us unjustly come what may.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.