PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

My understanding is that UEFA were happy with the situation regarding how the payment was made but felt the contract was above market value. Iirc we had to write it down a bit for FFP.

So to be clear, UEFA were happy with HRH owned ADUG paying part of Etisalat's sponsorship, as long as it was at true market value & ADUG were repaid?

If that's the case, why did UEFA exhume this as an issue in 2020 based on the stolen emails, & why're the PL presumably taking up the baton this time around?

As for Etihad, it was claimed they only paid £8m of their sponsorship deal, with ADUG funding the balance. Is this correct & were ADUG ever recompensed? Is this also fine with IAS 24?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So to be clear, UEFA were happy with HRH owned ADUG paying part of Etisalat's sponsorship, as long as it was at true market value & ADUG were repaid?

If that's the case, why did UEFA exhume this as an issue in 2020 based on the stolen emails, & why're the PL presumably taking up the baton this time around?

As for Etihad, it was claimed they only paid £8m of their sponsorship deal, with ADUG funding the balance. Is this correct & were ADUG ever recompensed? Is this also fine with IAS 24?

I've just clarified my response. CAS reported that the CFCB had no problem with the mechanism of the payment ias part of the post Der Spiegel investigation. They didn't appear to know about the way it was paid in 2014.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Maybe Martin Samuel’s could write a book about it - he’s the only sports journalist I can think of who appears to be non-partisan and has any integrity.

It would make an amazing netflix series. The opening scene could be Rui Pinto being arrested by armed police at a petrol station in Portugal. Mr Ed could play the part of Jurgen Klopp.

 

[Dribble]

I've just clarified my response. CAS reported that the CFCB had no problem with the mechanism of the payment ias part of the post Der Spiegel investigation. They didn't appear to know about the way it was paid in 2014.

OK thanks.

As for Etihad, it was claimed they only paid £8m of their sponsorship deal, with ADUG funding the balance. Is this correct & were ADUG ever recompensed? Is this also fine with IAS 24?

 

[halfcenturyup]

OK thanks.

As for Etihad, it was claimed they only paid £8m of their sponsorship deal, with ADUG funding the balance. Is this correct & were ADUG ever recompensed? Is this also fine with IAS 24?

How to say "I haven't been paying attention" without actually saying "I haven't been paying attention".

 

[CC1]

OK thanks.

As for Etihad, it was claimed they only paid £8m of their sponsorship deal, with ADUG funding the balance. Is this correct & were ADUG ever recompensed? Is this also fine with IAS 24?

YES & YES

its in our accounts & theirs. They paid us in full eventuall. Accepted by UEFA as nothing incorrect or fraudulent

 

[Centurions]

OK thanks.

As for Etihad, it was claimed they only paid £8m of their sponsorship deal, with ADUG funding the balance. Is this correct & were ADUG ever recompensed? Is this also fine with IAS 24?

It wasn't ADUG who funded the balance, it was the AD central fund(or some such title) was it not? Basically, the state funded the state airline (which pissed off the Americans).

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It wasn't ADUG who funded the balance, it was the AD central fund(or some such title) was it not? Basically, the state funded the state airline (which pissed off the Americans).

Yep, completely different from American venture capitalists bankrolling a company that has a turnover of $12m a year and paying 50 million a year in sponsorship to Chelsea. Or a company worth $500m signing a 235 million contract with the rags. Or while we're at it, a company no-one had ever heard of, but who happened to have an owner who was good friends with Liverpool's owner, doing a kit deal that at the time was worth more than the rags' deal with Nike (back when they were still good and the scousers weren't even the best team on Merseyside).

For comparison, Etihad were already bringing in $2bn in revenue when they first sponsored us.

 

[WRicko]

Yep, completely different from American venture capitalists bankrolling a company that has a turnover of $12m a year and paying 50 million a year in sponsorship to Chelsea. Or a company worth $500m signing a 235 million contract with the rags. Or while we're at it, a company no-one had ever heard of, but who happened to have an owner who was good friends with Liverpool's owner, doing a kit deal that at the time was worth more than the rags' deal with Nike (back when they were still good and the scousers weren't even the best team on Merseyside).

For comparison, Etihad were already bringing in $2bn in revenue when they first sponsored us.

The one you refer to with Chelsea is the infinite athlete or which I don’t think even sells to people rather business. Then you mention new balance. ( i think Liverpool have always been better than Everton in recent years even when they were not so good. I assume the one you refer to with United is team view ?

 

[WRicko]

Yep, completely different from American venture capitalists bankrolling a company that has a turnover of $12m a year and paying 50 million a year in sponsorship to Chelsea. Or a company worth $500m signing a 235 million contract with the rags. Or while we're at it, a company no-one had ever heard of, but who happened to have an owner who was good friends with Liverpool's owner, doing a kit deal that at the time was worth more than the rags' deal with Nike (back when they were still good and the scousers weren't even the best team on Merseyside).

For comparison, Etihad were already bringing in $2bn in revenue when they first sponsored us.

I hope khaldoon mentions these when he does his explanation speech he has promised when we are cleared