citytilllidie
Well-Known Member
I think it's probably more that if we get found guilty of anything serious, Puma and other respected sponsors would withdraw their backing, so double or treble whammy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
citytilllidie
Well-Known Member
You mean Txiki?I have just been for a meal in the Ivy and had a 3 minute chat to taxi about this subject. He genuinely looked like he couldn’t give two fucks about it and his exact words to me were “do not worry about it one bit, we have nothing to worry about”. 100 percent genuine.
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
I think it's probably more that if we get found guilty of anything serious, Puma and other respected sponsors would withdraw their backing, so double or treble whammy.
I’d hardly call creative accounting cheating, could someone sign post me in the direction of a company that doesn’t get their accountants to look at any loop hole to pay less money in taxes? This is exactly the opposite City were looking at ways in how they could creatively spend more money, would you ever see Amazon, Google, McDonalds or Coca Cola doing that?
Cheating where sponsors leave I would imagine would be over match fixing allegations like Seria A or Lance Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs. If someone has more money than me be it earned or given to them do I call them a cheat in life?
This is a vicious agender driven by CEOs of clubs who turn over more money than us. They could match and even better our spending which a lot of them have done, all the investment has an effect on what these money these chief execs get at the end of the financial year in their bonuses as they don’t like reinvesting profit.
The media are loving this as it has the millions of plastics who follow United and Liverpool going to their web pages to read about it with no balance to the story. What will the earthquake be like when UEFA come back and say they can’t find any wrong doing? It will be piss funny.
Thank you for your explanation. It will certainly help me follow this issue better.I'll try. To the best of my knowledge the accusations are as follows:
FIFA
This is to do with the signing of young players from overseas, the offence for which Chelsea received a two window transfer ban. It seems we are being investigated for 9 offences compared to 29 for Chelsea so, if guilty, hopefully will face a lesser punishment.
UEFA
This appears to be to do with various things, including the source of sponsorship revenue and the image rights payments.
Etihad - the allegation is that Etihad have only paid a small part of their contracted sums from their own pocket, with the rest coming from "other sources". This has no merit on a number of counts. First of all, even if Etihad is classed as a related party, the deal appears to have been accepted as meeting the 'fair value' requirement and therefore the source of the funds is completely irrelevant. UEFA's own website makes this clear therefore I can't see how there can possibly be any infringement of FFP rules here.
There are two other deals where the situation is less clear, those with Aabar & Etisalat. The accusation here appears to be that these have been paid in excess of the contracted amounts with the excess amounts possibly coming from ADUG. There are a number of elements to this. The first is, are these companies related parties? We don't think they are whereas UEFA (via their auditors) claimed they are. If they are, then UEFA can write-down the value of these but can't if not. Had this issue been the difference between being sanctioned nad not being back in 2014 then it might well have been decided in court. Our failure of FFP in 2014 due to our inability to claim mitigation because of the pre-June 2010 contract wages rendered that battle irrelevant to a great degree but it may well come up again. If they are held to be related parties and are written-down then UEFA will look again at our FFP calculations but I don't think it'll make any difference to our compliance.
If they're not deemed to be related parties then, as I see it, the assessment process is different. While UEFA can't write-down the value of the deals, it can claim that it's disguised owner investment, which is limited to covering losses of €30m over any three-year period. To do that though, it would have to show that ADUG were directly responsible for funding and I think it would be very difficult to do that. There's also the fact that these sponsorships were part of the 2014 settlement agreement with UEFA, in which we agreed not to increase them so the question is what did UEFA already know about these deals? But the key issue, as I said, is whether UEFA can show where the funds came from.
The image rights payments are another potential thing that could be investigated. As most know from the Der Spiegel leaks, we appear to have "sold" image rights to a third-party but where there was an arrangement to fund these from Abu Dhabi. Again, UEFA appear to have known of this agreement at the time of the FFP settlement although maybe not the full story. I can't see how this arrangement is necessary for where we are now. Potentially therefore we could be required ot bring all image rights payments back in-house but I can't see that there will be any significant impact on our overall FFP position if so.
The FA
They appear to be investigating payments made in respect of Jadon Sancho. Agents are not supposed to represent players under 16 or receive any payment in respect of their services but there was a £200k payment, allegedly to Sancho's father. I'd guess we weren't the only club who did something like this.
The PL
I have no idea what they might be looking at, apart from the fact that they are the licensing body for FFP. Their FFP rules are much looser than UEFA's and I can't see how we might have infringed these, apart from the fact that the image rights paid out of a third-party would normally count towards our wages. As wages are one of the things regulated under PL rules, this might potentially be an issue.
You mean Txiki?
No, he means Taxi ;-)
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
I'll try. To the best of my knowledge the accusations are as follows:
FIFA
This is to do with the signing of young players from overseas, the offence for which Chelsea received a two window transfer ban. It seems we are being investigated for 9 offences compared to 29 for Chelsea so, if guilty, hopefully will face a lesser punishment.
UEFA
This appears to be to do with various things, including the source of sponsorship revenue and the image rights payments.
Etihad - the allegation is that Etihad have only paid a small part of their contracted sums from their own pocket, with the rest coming from "other sources". This has no merit on a number of counts. First of all, even if Etihad is classed as a related party, the deal appears to have been accepted as meeting the 'fair value' requirement and therefore the source of the funds is completely irrelevant. UEFA's own website makes this clear therefore I can't see how there can possibly be any infringement of FFP rules here.
There are two other deals where the situation is less clear, those with Aabar & Etisalat. The accusation here appears to be that these have been paid in excess of the contracted amounts with the excess amounts possibly coming from ADUG. There are a number of elements to this. The first is, are these companies related parties? We don't think they are whereas UEFA (via their auditors) claimed they are. If they are, then UEFA can write-down the value of these but can't if not. Had this issue been the difference between being sanctioned nad not being back in 2014 then it might well have been decided in court. Our failure of FFP in 2014 due to our inability to claim mitigation because of the pre-June 2010 contract wages rendered that battle irrelevant to a great degree but it may well come up again. If they are held to be related parties and are written-down then UEFA will look again at our FFP calculations but I don't think it'll make any difference to our compliance.
If they're not deemed to be related parties then, as I see it, the assessment process is different. While UEFA can't write-down the value of the deals, it can claim that it's disguised owner investment, which is limited to covering losses of €30m over any three-year period. To do that though, it would have to show that ADUG were directly responsible for funding and I think it would be very difficult to do that. There's also the fact that these sponsorships were part of the 2014 settlement agreement with UEFA, in which we agreed not to increase them so the question is what did UEFA already know about these deals? But the key issue, as I said, is whether UEFA can show where the funds came from.
The image rights payments are another potential thing that could be investigated. As most know from the Der Spiegel leaks, we appear to have "sold" image rights to a third-party but where there was an arrangement to fund these from Abu Dhabi. Again, UEFA appear to have known of this agreement at the time of the FFP settlement although maybe not the full story. I can't see how this arrangement is necessary for where we are now. Potentially therefore we could be required ot bring all image rights payments back in-house but I can't see that there will be any significant impact on our overall FFP position if so.
The FA
They appear to be investigating payments made in respect of Jadon Sancho. Agents are not supposed to represent players under 16 or receive any payment in respect of their services but there was a £200k payment, allegedly to Sancho's father. I'd guess we weren't the only club who did something like this.
The PL
I have no idea what they might be looking at, apart from the fact that they are the licensing body for FFP. Their FFP rules are much looser than UEFA's and I can't see how we might have infringed these, apart from the fact that the image rights paid out of a third-party would normally count towards our wages. As wages are one of the things regulated under PL rules, this might potentially be an issue.
I’m sure the forum will find this very helpful. Many thanks for this @Prestwich_Blue much appreciated :)
He was eating CABbageYou were talking to a taxi??
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
I have just been for a meal in the Ivy and had a 3 minute chat to taxi about this subject. He genuinely looked like he couldn’t give two fucks about it and his exact words to me were “do not worry about it one bit, we have nothing to worry about”. 100 percent genuine.
What did you talk about for the other 2 minutes 57 seconds mate?
John Wayne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 3,277
I'll try. To the best of my knowledge the accusations are as follows:
FIFA
This is to do with the signing of young players from overseas, the offence for which Chelsea received a two window transfer ban. It seems we are being investigated for 9 offences compared to 29 for Chelsea so, if guilty, hopefully will face a lesser punishment.
UEFA
This appears to be to do with various things, including the source of sponsorship revenue and the image rights payments.
Etihad - the allegation is that Etihad have only paid a small part of their contracted sums from their own pocket, with the rest coming from "other sources". This has no merit on a number of counts. First of all, even if Etihad is classed as a related party, the deal appears to have been accepted as meeting the 'fair value' requirement and therefore the source of the funds is completely irrelevant. UEFA's own website makes this clear therefore I can't see how there can possibly be any infringement of FFP rules here.
There are two other deals where the situation is less clear, those with Aabar & Etisalat. The accusation here appears to be that these have been paid in excess of the contracted amounts with the excess amounts possibly coming from ADUG. There are a number of elements to this. The first is, are these companies related parties? We don't think they are whereas UEFA (via their auditors) claimed they are. If they are, then UEFA can write-down the value of these but can't if not. Had this issue been the difference between being sanctioned nad not being back in 2014 then it might well have been decided in court. Our failure of FFP in 2014 due to our inability to claim mitigation because of the pre-June 2010 contract wages rendered that battle irrelevant to a great degree but it may well come up again. If they are held to be related parties and are written-down then UEFA will look again at our FFP calculations but I don't think it'll make any difference to our compliance.
If they're not deemed to be related parties then, as I see it, the assessment process is different. While UEFA can't write-down the value of the deals, it can claim that it's disguised owner investment, which is limited to covering losses of €30m over any three-year period. To do that though, it would have to show that ADUG were directly responsible for funding and I think it would be very difficult to do that. There's also the fact that these sponsorships were part of the 2014 settlement agreement with UEFA, in which we agreed not to increase them so the question is what did UEFA already know about these deals? But the key issue, as I said, is whether UEFA can show where the funds came from.
The image rights payments are another potential thing that could be investigated. As most know from the Der Spiegel leaks, we appear to have "sold" image rights to a third-party but where there was an arrangement to fund these from Abu Dhabi. Again, UEFA appear to have known of this agreement at the time of the FFP settlement although maybe not the full story. I can't see how this arrangement is necessary for where we are now. Potentially therefore we could be required ot bring all image rights payments back in-house but I can't see that there will be any significant impact on our overall FFP position if so.
The FA
They appear to be investigating payments made in respect of Jadon Sancho. Agents are not supposed to represent players under 16 or receive any payment in respect of their services but there was a £200k payment, allegedly to Sancho's father. I'd guess we weren't the only club who did something like this.
The PL
I have no idea what they might be looking at, apart from the fact that they are the licensing body for FFP. Their FFP rules are much looser than UEFA's and I can't see how we might have infringed these, apart from the fact that the image rights paid out of a third-party would normally count towards our wages. As wages are one of the things regulated under PL rules, this might potentially be an issue.
Thank you for this synopsis. Is the alleged third-party ownership of Bruno Zuculini solely part of the FIFA investigation?
The usual stuff - the rise of Uber and the issues with airport drop-offsWhat did you talk about for the other 2 minutes 57 seconds mate?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.