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

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

The more I think about the UEFA side of things the more I come to the conclusion that this will all hinge on the definition of who are related parties. Therefore I suspect the outcome will be that we accept that the Abu Dhabi companies are related parties. That way, the Etihad deal is fine regardless of where the money comes from. The other deals are then written down to an agreed value for FFP purposes but we can still receive the full money for them. We're well in credit I think as far as FFP is concerned so that doesn't impact us adversely. Would be the best option for the club I reckon.

 

[cheekybids]

The Mail on Sunday today has a double page spread on us under the title 'Football's dirty War'

They have an interview with a top European lawyer who also represented Edward Snowden.

William Bourdan is leading the attempts to prevent his extradition from Hungary.

"I'm surprised not to see more citizens, politicians and the football industry asking why (Pinto) might be extradited and his data destroyed.

"It is in the long-term interests to put an end to this dirty war which is so harmful to football."

It goes on to state Uefa have made no effort to contact Pinto or his lawyers and they are trying to corroborate his findings (yes, Mail said his findings) though alternative sources in their investigations.

The Mail further states they have seen details from Belgian prosecutors to the Hungarian colleagues, asking to be able to cite Pinto as a witness in a tax avoidance case. They also request documents from his computers, which the Hungarians have seized.

Similar requests have been made by the French National Financial Prosecutors Office and Munich's tax investigation office.

Swiss investigators examining the relationship between Fifa president Gianni Infantino and a Swiss prosecutor, Rinaldo Arnold, have also askee Pinto for information.

Eurojust, the European wide judicial co-operation unit, had a meeting of prosecutors from 10 countries at the Hague, two weeks ago, to co-ordinate work on the basis of Pinto's information (again, citing it to be Pinto's)

At no stage does Ian Herbert the author of the piece (surprise, surprise) wish to inform the reader that Pinto is also wanted for blackmail and stealing £200k from a bank in the Cayman Islands as a result of his hacking (funny that...?)

As for the other turd that won't flush, his colleague Nick Harris in the same piece stated Fifa have been using Football Leaks for years, despite being aware yhey may have been as a result of hacking.

Mark Goddard was in charge of Fofa's Transfer Matching system database in 201,and was involved in many investigations into clubs, says cleaning up the game justifies using evidence wherever it can be found.

He says Uefa should do the same in investigating Manchester City over FFFP matters.

Goddard reveals: "We knew he (Pinto) was getting primary source material, and having verified the quality and veracity of those documents, we were thinking "Jesus, this helps us".

"Any particular information (in the leaks) that would help us in pursuing a particular line of inquiry, we would use that to build a picture, and build a case. (We were saying to the clubs) it's not like we don't trust you, we're just requiring you to prove what you've got. "

Goddard attempts to cover his arse by insisting Fifa would not start disciplinary proceedings based on Leaks documents alone (yeah, right) "But we would ready the documents and think "Wow, and then go and ask a question. We could ask did you guys do blah blah blah and blah?, and they'd sit there ... Going "Holy shit, how did you know how to ask that? (we said) it's didn't matter how we knew how to ask that. Just answer the question."

Goddard is now an independent consultant and pushed for changes at Uefa to force all clubs to make public all aspects of transfers.

He says City were among those resistant. He describes them as "obfuscatory" and as an illustration adds "I recently bumped into a a TMS compliance lawyer who has been working on the City minors topics (an investigation into alleged rule breaches around hiring foreign youngsters) for four years.

Asked to clarify whether City had been unhelpful on that process, Goddard says: "Og God, yeah! The usual. Obfuscate. Delay. Some clubs make it as hard for you as possible."

I'm sure City will be all over this today, Goddard has basically admitted Fifa are knowingly working with stolen material?

Apologies, done off my phone!

Well since this article I reckon they’ve had a shitty call from lawyers & after watching Sunday Supplement are busy running round newsagents taking the papers off the shelf.

 

[aguero93:20]

Well since this article I reckon they’ve had a shitty call from lawyers & after watching Sunday Supplement are busy running round newsagents taking the papers off the shelf.

What was said on Sunday Supplement?

 

[cheekybids]

What was said on Sunday Supplement?

It was all very mild & said City aren’t worried & then read the legal statement from City.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Will Sterling's offside goal be added to our rap sheet?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder how this little lot would have got on, if subject to UEFA's rules.

'However, Sky's euphoria at being on air before BSB evaporated quickly as 1989 progressed. Dish sales were running at fewer than 10,000 a month and and losses were mounting – up to £2m a week by late 1989

In August 1990 News Corp's UK subsidiary, News International, reported annual losses of £257m, with Sky losing £95m, on top of start-up costs of £120m.

'the deal to create BSkyB was formally announced late on Friday, 2 November 1990, that this was effectively a takeover by Murdoch's News Corp. The battle to for UK satellite TV supremacy had cost Murdoch and BSB's backers around £1.25bn to get to this point'

With the company stabilised, a secure encryption system and no UK pay-TV opposition, by early 1992 the creation of English football's Premier League provided the opportunity for the deal that would ensure BSkyB's lasting success.

BSkyB decided to bid for exclusive live rights, scuppering ITV, in a massively controversial but groundbreaking £304m five-year deal, with highlights on the BBC.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2009/feb/04/sky-tv-early-years


Sir Al, who likes to call us cheats.
https://fusion.tv/story/94832/alan-sugar-premier-league-tv-deal-sky/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2813182/Sir-Alan-Sugar-sells-Amstrad-to-BSkyB.html

(Utd of course, in typical fashion, favoured the other deal, led by none other than Manchester Utd fan & future director & future head of the FA Greg Dyke & Sky then had to somehow become their friends & have bent over backwards, of forwards, ever since, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT).

This tv money, followed by the Champs League money & exposure, was the reason the clubs here were able to fully join the cartel & why they were able to pull away from competition. The same clubs, are still there, barring Everton who are a bit behind & Leeds, who fucked up.

Their whole success, is based on a company making huge losses, becoming a company making large profits.

Very good point, mate.

 

[nmc]

The more I think about the UEFA side of things the more I come to the conclusion that this will all hinge on the definition of who are related parties. Therefore I suspect the outcome will be that we accept that the Abu Dhabi companies are related parties. That way, the Etihad deal is fine regardless of where the money comes from. The other deals are then written down to an agreed value for FFP purposes but we can still receive the full money for them. We're well in credit I think as far as FFP is concerned so that doesn't impact us adversely. Would be the best option for the club I reckon.

I’m sure you are right but the pressure from the 14 won’t be averted by this .... I do fear another rules rewrite just to snare us. This isn’t and never was about right and / or wrong - it’s about stopping us. Plan and simple. That’s why I think we are pretty clean - we must have been ultra careful and why inflate the other deals when Etihad is in the clear? I’m not too sure UEFA know what to do they are stuck between a rock and a hard place but they have to sanction us or the 14 will kick off again.

 

[citizen_maine]

I’m sure you are right but the pressure from the 14 won’t be averted by this .... I do fear another rules rewrite just to snare us. This isn’t and never was about right and / or wrong - it’s about stopping us. Plan and simple. That’s why I think we are pretty clean - we must have been ultra careful and why inflate the other deals when Etihad is in the clear? I’m not too sure UEFA know what to do they are stuck between a rock and a hard place but they have to sanction us or the 14 will kick off again.

The thing is, any further change to the rules will impact the 14 every bit as much as us

 

[nmc]

The thing is, any further change to the rules will impact the 14 every bit as much as us

Possibly but they are not under review like we are. Do UEFA look at Arsenal or Uniteds accounts?

 

[Newtoncc]

What was said on Sunday Supplement?

I watched some of it and there was a statement i found quite odd as someone asked how the club was reacting to this internally, the response was we are deluded if we can't understand this, he said there are loads of clubs being looked at and these leaks are across a large number of clubs across Europe, "the odd thing is there are more leaks about Man U, and i think he said Liverpool ,than City".He then said that City feel they are being picked on.

So if there are more issues with Man U than us , why is it wrong to thing we are being singled out?