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

[HelloCity]

It did and Conn is stating it did. He is also stating that we claimed all of the sponsorship was coming from Etihad revenues and is implying that is why we have been found guilty of misleading UEFA.

Not an issue under FFP law.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Has he? I read it that he was inferring wrong doing on both ours and Etihad’s part.

Let's be honest. We've been a bit shifty even if, in terms of FFP, we've stayed within the letter of the rules if not necessarily the spirit. But you could say the same or similar about UEFA. They've applied the letter even when it's against the spirit. And when it suited them, like with PSG's Qatar sponsorship, they played fast and loose.

 

[SilverFox2]

I believe the first objective for City is to have the allegations thrown out and any threat of sanctions removed.

Talk of then attacking FFP and UEFA may be misplaced. Khaldoon has said that City know who is behind the moves to undermine and discredit the Club. Attention could focus on individuals (in the way Platini was forced out) and organisations behind besmirching City. They could be pursued and claims made for damages. It is an alternative view that does not attack UEFA as such but those behind the sustained campaign aganst Manchester City, CFG and our owners.

I'm no lawyer but pursuing individuals may well be the way forward.
We cannot expect fairness from the media or the FA so go for those who have been so full of hubris and arrogance for so long hiding behind the fence of footballs apparent special case.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I think Conn is wrong. In his fit of bile he’s lost the plot. He’s so lost the plot he’s almost finding Etihad guilty of a crime as well. This is the problem. Sports writers trying to deal with a subject that is business / legal related which he doesn’t understand... but it doesn’t stop him offering his jaundiced opinions.

Some of his coverage has been absurd. All presented as if City are already guilty. If he was a credible operator his first question would have been: "Why are City so insistent they have done nothing wrong." I mean they could have made any statement they wanted but City have said publically we have "irrefutable evidence" and the allegations are "false." A credible journalist would think twice about this and adopt a more neutral stance...if only to cover their own backside if City do win their case.
Why would Khaldoon lie knowing if it goes against him his reputation will be destroyed. City are always cautious (sometimes too cautious) about what they say in public, but not this time. Conn is risking his own reputation. I didnt think he was that stupid.

 

[domalino]

He's understood it perfectly from what I can see. He picked up my tweet and followed the link to the same document.

Actually one thing he's got slightly wrong is that he's said we've claimed Etihad sponsorship wasn't subsidised. I don't think we've ever said that per se just that Etihad pay us from their own funds. You could argue that they did but we knew those funds weren't absolutely Etihad's & derived from the EC. Khaldoon is unlikely to have been unaware of that.

He has completely ignored the meaning of it though, as he has no intention whatsoever of pointing out that the Executive Council not being related to Manchester City means there's no way that funding can be construed as owner investment.

 

[Gordyola]

By way of previous reputation, both sides of the fence will pick judges they feel give them the best chance of winning.

Head of AC was a human rights lawyer.

José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues

 

[Saddleworth2]

He's understood it perfectly from what I can see. He picked up my tweet and followed the link to the same document.

Actually one thing he's got slightly wrong is that he's said we've claimed Etihad sponsorship wasn't subsidised. I don't think we've ever said that per se just that Etihad pay us from their own funds. You could argue that they did but we knew those funds weren't absolutely Etihad's & derived from the EC. Khaldoon is unlikely to have been unaware of that.

But surely it should not concern UEFA that the EC was funding Etihad who utlised some of those funds to pay sponsorship as a normal expense to their business.

 

[nmc]

It did and Conn is stating it did. He is also stating that we claimed all of the sponsorship was coming from Etihad revenues and is implying that is why we have been found guilty of misleading UEFA.

I doesn’t need to come from Etihad revenues ... just Etihad resources. How Etihad raise their capital resources is nothing to do with David Conn or UEFA. No other club is being scrutinised like this. It’s a witch hunt.

 

[Bluewonder]

conn at it again

Appears to have used the information PB dug out too.

 

[John Wayne]

He has completely ignored the meaning of it though, as he has no intention whatsoever of pointing out that the Executive Council not being related to Manchester City means there's no way that funding can be construed as owner investment.

Because he doesn't understand and, more importantly, doesn't want to understand.