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

[Prestwich_Blue]

B b b b b David Conn has seen reciepts and invoices. Its not like taking a jumper back to Mark and Sparks.

David liked my tweet showing that evidence about who paid the sponsorship. There's hope for him yet.

 

[cheekybids]

UEFA may well be destroyed. If they are shown to be prejudicial then their already questionable authority will evaporate and they will be financially liable for heavy damages.

So far all that has been aired in the media are allegations against Man City whereas City have a body of evidence that has so far remained closed. PB's report is very newsworthy. Are any journalists going to examine that? Are any of them going to look at the bigger picture of the rivalry in football that underlies FFP and this dispute? This is not about Man City misdemeanours. The football authorities have I believe been corralled by the likes of Tebas and profit hungry football executives from rival clubs.

I think UEFA tried to reach an accommodation with City, but City refused to take another pinch, so the whole thing is going to end up in the European courts and it will end with the destruction of UEFA.

It does sound very grubby but I don’t know any journalist who use that lingo....

 

[badaz52]

Whilst I'd like to believe this to be the smoking gun there has got to be an audit trail for the monies involved. If the money went Etihad > City then it would be appear to be Ok as we cannot be held to account where Etihad get their funds. However, if it's XXXX > City for the alleged ~58m then hopefully we can account for it.

If the scenario is where did Etihad get the monies for the sponsorship and was it being subsidised by HH SM, then PB's research comes into play.

I think this is where the problem does lie, the money came from Etihad but Etihad is owned by a consortium of which some funds may come from SM. However, if this is the issue surely all of the other clubs owned by SM will face a similar investigation?

 

[ytic04]

Zeigler says we're also getting done for back dating payments.

Is this also being questioned.?

 

[Rolee]

It was part of the toxic article by Herbert.

So can we assume that Herbert is privvy to UEFA's evidence?

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Zeigler says we're also getting done for back dating payments.

Is this also being questioned.?

Time once again for the oracle that is PB to debunk that one

 

[moomba]

I see the fail this morning is still presenting as fact that Sheik Mansour paid all but £8m of the Etihad sponsorship. I am assuming that this may be the irrefutable evidence that the club has. It says much that we are being banned for 2 years for a straightforward misrepresentation/mistake of fact. Surely there must be more to it than this?

Why wouldn't the club issue legal threats to papers printing that sort of stuff.

It worries me.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Colin is the issue with UEFA that they think ADUG paid the money for the Etihad deal? If it can be proven the money came from the executive council and not ADUG, would this make a difference?
Also did the executive council pay the money directly into City's accounts and does this make any difference?

If I understand it correctly, if the money didn't come from ADUG then it's not owner investment. UEFAwwill no doubt try to claim otherwise. But even if it was, the Etihad sponsorship was fair value, certainly when compared to what Leterme and his IC allowed PSG to claim.

Again, it's a guess but I'd say everyone gave the money to ADUG for onward transmission to City but City told them not to do that.

Now, when you read all those so-called 'smoking gun' emails in the correct context, rather than the spin put on them by Der Spiegel and others, the picture is really quite different isn't it? That's why I've been banging the drum about context. It's crucial to this.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It's basically the local government of Abu Dhabi.

Crucially, we're not owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, we're owned by an individual from the royal family (Sheikh Mansour), who in turn owns ADUG.

But the companies in question (Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, etc.) are all, at least in part, government owned.

To be the main sponsor of a successful, high-profile club like Manchester City back then would cost in the region of £50-70m a year. Now, Etihad couldn't afford to pay that kind of money, but the Abu Dhabi government wanted its airline to gain the exposure that would come with being such a prominent sponsor. So it topped up Etihad's funds accordingly.

That's the theory anyway.

The alternative (UEFA) argument is that ADUG wanted to prop up Manchester City so funneled money to it through various sponsors. But there seems to be evidence that it was the EC paying this money, not ADUG.

So, if UEFA accept that these sponsorships represented fair value (i.e., we could have commanded similar amounts from any international companies), surely that suggests the government was seeking to "prop up" Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, etc. — NOT Manchester City — by enabling them to gain exposure on the international stage.

In short, I don't blame you for being confused!

It looks like the Executive Council was subsidising Etihad, much to the chagrin of the US airlines. What the airline was then doing with that subsidy was, presumably, up to them? Also, from what I understand, Sheikh Mansour is NOT a member of that executive council which suggests that some form of personal subsidy from him is not what would have happened?

 

[Len Rum]

Firstly this thread is getting hard to follow so apologies if already asked. I keep reading 10 pages or so but missing lots. @Ric Time for a some kind of summary sticky page maybe?
So am I correct in thinking that Cas will investigate that UEFA followed procedure and their investigation is limited to that? So when do City get to put forward our 'irrefutable evidence'?

If you listen to Cheesy's blog with @Prestwich_Blue on page 1641 then you are correct mate.
We don't get to put forward our evidence to CAS.
Our defence will be restricted to the fact that UEFA ignored it.
This is my concern - that evidence that we are innocent is in fact irrelevant!
In some ways it's perhaps just as well UEFA ignored this evidence because had they considered it but then decided that contrary to the facts we were guilty , we wouldn't have a leg to stand on!
Cheesy shared these concerns about process rather evidence being CAS's remit although Prestwich Blue seemed more upbeat.
Confused?
I am.