Great point. Someone posted on here that we would not have breached FFP for most of the seasons even without the Etihad money. I can’t recall seeing any detailed figures.
We don't know what the details of the allegations are, so it's not easy to make calculations.
I think it is clear, though, that the PL must be alleging the Etihad sponsorship was severely overstated to have allegedly failed FFP. Iirc, the club's results were generally around break even in the years under review, so the other matters wouldn't have added anywhere near 100 million to losses.
What do we know about Etihad? Etihad 1 was supposedly a 400 million contract over 10 years, say 40 million a year. Etihad 2, we know from CAS was 220 million over years, say 55 million a year. Safe to assume Etihad 3 and 4 increased again to, say 60 million and 65 million a year.
UEFA's claim was that, as described in the emails, for one Etihad payment 8 million was paid "directly" and the remainder paid "indirectly" by ADUG. They applied this to each year even though, as CAS pointed out, the "direct" contribution changed each time. Anyway, let's assume the PL's case is also that 8 million was direct and the rest "indirect" each year. For Etihad 2 that would be a correction of 140 million (55-8*3) for each three year period, more than enough to put the club in FFP trouble, I imagine, even allowing for allowable costs.
Not that this is going to happen, imho. They don't have much chance of landing this one, I think, so it's all just a theoretical exercise really.
Anyway, these are just back of fag packet calculations, although I think think the basics are right. Happy to be corrected if wrong. It will be impossible to be accurate, though, until we see the reasons published by the IP.
