Your quote above is emphatically not correct...
Mr Pearce explains that he understood that £8 million was available from the airline's marketing budget, with the remainder coming from Etihad’s central funds.
This evidence is further supported by a confirmation from the Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee of Etihad that the accounts of Etihad for the relevant financial years recorded (i) the full amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements as liabilities of Etihad and(ii) the payments made by Etihad to MCFC as settling those liabilities in full.
Ah, so that
was cleared up. Fair enough, I will stop saying that then. Etihad did pay it after all. I was going off one of the prominent theories, before the CAS case got dealt with. Which was, the Executive Council(if I remember right) used one of their funds to deal with it. Which someone speculated, after the information about the 'Open Skies' investigation came out. That wouldn't be equity funding either. I seem to remember Der Spiegel did a City article about a similar theory too.
Also in fairness to the media, "artificially inflated" revenue is terminology used by CAS (p65)
Good spot(at least I know where it's come from now). I will point out, I never said 'artificially inflated revenue' was incorrect because I know what they are inferring by it. Overstating the amount you received from a company... can be said to be inflating it deceptively. It's still the one term that leads people to make incorrect conclusions about overvalued sponsorships. At the timestamp I gave, where he says:
"The allegation goes that City received sponsorship money from a company --Lets use Etihad as the example-- that
didn't represent fair value. The
sponsor knowingly overpaid, so that City could note that down on their company accounts, as a big revenue booster..."
Unless I'm missing something here(and I don't think I am), there can only be one way to take those words and he's simply incorrect.
and is clearly inferred by the PL charges.
Consequently, absent an allegation that the accounts of Etihad were falsely prepared, which even the CFCB has not to date been willing to make, the “disguised equity” funding allegation fails."
The PL's allegation infers it yes, but the problem is most people clearly don't know what the term 'artificially inflated revenue' is inferring itself. It needs to be retired IMO or people will continue to make the same incorrect conclusions, which is why the press like using it. It's frustrating to see those conversations going in circles and people spreading misinformation because of it.
inews.co.uk