UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[MillionMilesAway]

If that’s the best they’ve got then we’re definitely in the clear.

I thought that. I can see them levying a fine for irregularities, which saves face if needed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...ating-manchester-city-s-ffp-conduct-1.3818908

 

[petrusha]

That assumes that the UAE really does stand squarely behind Man City. Personally I have always thought that City belong to Sheikh Mansour. ABu Dhabi and the UAE are not going to make economic sacrifices for Man City who are just one of their many Princes football clubs.

I think we can be quite confident that, at a minimum, the powers that be in Abu Dhabi are aware of the high profile enjoyed by a club competing at the top of the most popular domestic competition in the world and the reputational impact that can have on Abu Dhabi itself and take an interest accordingly. If they regarded us as just another football club owned by one royal among many, we wouldn't have people like Khaldoon and Simon Pearce on board. Those guys operate at the very top level in Abu Dhabi and wouldn't be involved in a venture unless it was regarded as very important by the people who count over there.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You have issues too I see.

Everyone has issues, Marv.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Loads but I manage to keep most of them to myself

Really?! ;-)

 

[MCFCFanTX]

David Conn yesterday (Irish Times) has a piece saying the most serious allegation for UEFA is the diguised sponsorship claim that the Sheikh was funding Etihad's sponsorship (and presumably others).

Was the club not already cleared of that years ago? I'm pretty sure all of our sponsors were considered legitimate when we were initially investigated. I may be wrong though. Still, if that is all they have then we should be fine.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yep. Admittedly, Henry did make reference to FFP when he first bought the club but to suggest that was his primary motivation insofar of doing things in some mythical correct way is bollocks. More likely that he hoped FFP would cement Liverpool’s place in the elite and increase the value of the club exponentially from the knockdown price he got it for. Someone should remind the short-sighted fuckwit that FFP 2.0 now allows new owners of clubs to do what City were originally punished for.

I think that's a little harsh. The revised FFP will have come in after Henry's comments. I suspect he was given assurances which proved to be of water.
The throwaway paragraph about him that was quoted by @citytillidie is just padding out of context.

 

[Marvin]

Loads but I manage to keep most of them to myself

We're all human. No point playing all this I'm better than you lark. Point scoring between blues seems pretty silly this morning.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We're all human. No point playing all this I'm better than you lark. Point scoring between blues seems pretty silly this morning.

You can’t post what you posted and not expect a robust reaction from some quarters, Marvin. You must have realised this by now.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I thought that. I can see them levying a fine for irregularities, which saves face if needed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...ating-manchester-city-s-ffp-conduct-1.3818908

I’ve told David I think he’s barking up the wrong tree on this. UEFA state in their Q&A on FFP that it’s fine for an owner or related party to sponsor a club as long as that transaction is at fair value when assessed against the market. Etihad is fair value and UEFA agreed it was when they looked at it in 2014. It doesn’t matter who paid the money therefore.

(It was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council by the way).

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Was the club not already cleared of that years ago? I'm pretty sure all of our sponsors were considered legitimate when we were initially investigated. I may be wrong though. Still, if that is all they have then we should be fine.

I think it's a finesse from the Spiegel leaks.
Others here have stated that any investment through related sponsorships has to be at market value. That was assessed and any revisions applied when the last sanctions were applied.

As far as I can see, the allegation here is that City lied/misled about the true source of the money - not that an associated company funded above fair market value, but that a large amount of it was from the owner and not disclosed. David Conn has stated that this would be in breach of company rules somehow (see the end of the irishtimes link for a brief note).