As @halfcenturyup said, you’re getting mixed up between Etihad and Etisalat. All this latest kerfuffle is to do with the Etisalat deal - nobody, not even City, ever claimed that the payments on that particular deal came from central funds and City have been up front about where it came from initially (and later paid back by Etisalat). You’re right that it wasn’t ruled on by CAS so it’s potentially a matter of concern but no-one can claim it was disguised equity funding as we’ve not made any attempt to disguise it from what I can see. I do worry a little that the independent panel might flag it up and rule against us but on the other hand you have David Dein saying that he doesn’t believe it’s that much of a smoking gun.
Agree I dont understand how you can have a discipline procedure without the right to appeal. That in itself leads you to think kangaroo court.
It also undermines the appeal proceedings as it does really have to follow any rules, just the made up rules they made.
Football doesn't live in the real world from the top to grassroots its badly run.
Going of topic I was banned for 4 yrs without a hearing just got a letter from kent fa lol.
Football doesn't seem to have to follow any sensible laws or rules. It's a basic common right to be able to appeal a decision. Yet in the pl you cant. You can see why City want an independent committee.
That’s the way I’m reading it but I’m no expert on this. Maybe @Prestwich_Blue can clarify?Cheers, that certainly helps clarify Dein’s comments for me. So the actual issue with Etisalat then is that we simply paid the money ourselves, but didn’t hide that fact? A breach of FFP then, but not false accounting?
It's not equity funding because they got the money back. It's short-term financing if it's anything. In effect, selling a receivable at the worst.
As I understand it, Etisalat couldn't pay the amounts because the renewal contract signature was delayed while some issues were ironed out. Until that happened, the parties were working under an MOU. Services were performed under the MOU and Etisalat's liability under the MOU recorded. Invoices were issued.
I imagine the club had budgeted the cash from the renewed contract and needed it to meet payments. So, until Etisalat could pay under a signed contract, ADUG advanced the money. When the contract was signed, Etisalat paid the sponsorship money to ADUG. In fact, when the contract was signed, it stipulated that money should be paid to ADUG.
There are some questions around all this, I only have the information from CAS, but in my opinion, it is in no way equity funding.
I think Mr Tebas is still smarting from RM losing a 400 milion dollar claim against one of ADs Investment Companies that our Mr K is CEO of.Tebas, as well, hasn’t stuck his fat fuck face into it either.
Perhaps they have a whiff of something on the wind
That’s the way I’m reading it but I’m no expert on this. Maybe @Prestwich_Blue can clarify?
Of course, the independent panel might see it differently so I wouldn’t say we’re totally out of the woods on that one. Although City being up front about it gives me encouragement that the club aren’t that worried about this particular line of investigation.
No Yves Leterme former Chief Investigator of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body he was the man that City accused of leaking confidential information during his investigation. He also accidentally cocked-up the investigation into PSG leaving it too late to charge them. He's also got a dodgy history as a disgraced Belgian PM. City went to CAS before the main case to get the investigation thrown out as it breached UEFA rules however, CAS couldn't rule. It was seen though as a tactic to highlight the issue later, in fact CAS agreed that their had been breaches and sided with City's reasons for non-cooperation and reduced the e30M fine to e10M couldnt throw it out as City had clearly not cooperated
That's right. Some guy called Mohammed. Shouldn't be too difficult to track down in the UAE.