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

[Sleeping_Easy]

Anyone who thinks because this is an in house interview that it will be ignored are wrong. This is the biggest news story in the sports world right now and one of the biggest in general. They'll all report it.

 

[bluwes]

I think it's more a concession that Etihad is state subsidised, which the powers at the club might not want to confirm.

Neither would Etihad because One of the US airlines, think it might be Delta are suing them over state subsidies

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

"They relied more on out of context stolen emails than all the other evidence that we provided about what actually happened".
​

I think that really is the smoking gun.

We already know at least 1 of the emails has discrepancies to what actually happened. People discussing something happening isnt proof of something actually having happened.

Bingo

 

[OB1]

What I cannot get my head around is this concept of related parties, or not related parties, and how it applies to our sponsorship revenue.

When formulating the FFP rules and the calculation of the break-even requirement, UEFA decided not to use some arbitrary method of determining this, but instead to use rules and principles as defined in International Accounting Standards. The very same principles auditors use when determining whether income should be declared as being from related parties or not.

This was in theory a wise and sensible move. Not only are the rules well known and understood by all the audit firms, they contain rules and guidelines which apply objective, not subjective tests. For the very reason that we do not want to have a situation where companies accounts are open to interpretation, with one firm saying one thing and another firm concluding something different. If a party is deemed not to be related, then all of the income from that organisation is by its very definition "fair market value" since it was fairly obtained from the market! Of course the opposite is true: If revenue is coming from a related party, then there is a question about the basis upon which that revenue was secured and therefore a question about what the fair value would have been had it been obtained on the open market.

As I understand it, Etihad Aviation Group is owned by the Abu Dhabi government, not by ADUG and neither by any other organisation over which Sheikh Mansour has control. In any event the question as to whether Etihad is related or not, will have been the subject of our annual audit of our accounts. And our independent accountants have repeatedly signed off our accounts on the basis that Etihad is NOT a related party. To do so, knowing or suspecting this to be untrue, would be a criminal offence and surely something that any reputable accounting firm would never contemplate.

So how on earth is it that UEFA can unilaterally decide that Etihad *is* related? Sure it may smack of being a bit of a fiddle - since we can all imagine there may be possible influences which could be brought to bear amongst the upper eschelons of the Abu Dhabi powers that be. But that is really not the point, and is - from UEFA's perspective "tough shit". IAS24 - the standard which deals with related parties - has very specific objective tests, which we have passed. It is not within UEFA's remit to decide upon a different set of criteria. Their own rules say they will apply IAS24 standards, and those standards define Etihad as not being related.

And if Etihad is not related, then there can be no question of us having artificially inflated our revenues (from Etihad). They are what they are, as stated in our audited accounts.

What am I missing here? Apart from UEFA being a bunch of crooks who will make up the rules as they go along and as it suits them, of course.

Etihad is not a related party.

 

[mancity1]

My biggest hope is that City fucking destroy UEFA in the court's, they're as bad as FIFA, rotten to the core.
Great interview by Ferran, thanks to him I feel much better now.

if not nimrod both will self implode , the landscape of how football is administered and organised to handle the next twenty years is changing rapidly.

I wonder if FIFA and UEFA ARE Co2 net zero emission (LOL).

 

[oakiecokie]

Shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the ground, snivelling twat!

Oh he should as I feel a new episode of the Nottingham train would be welcome.

 

[Mikeegrini]

I don’t think CAS’s decision will be conclusive.

They will almost certainly find that UEFA didn’t follow the correct process..they’ve already hinted at that.

But with such a complicated situation I think they will bounce it back to UEFA and say start it again and this time do it fairly.

UEFA will then offer City a way out. City might well reject it and we are back to CAS.

That’s my guess.

Thing is though, after the ruling from the recent ECJ case of Ali Riza and the Turkish FA. UEFA would have to either change the process so that they aren't judge, jury and executioner. Or risk a fresh appeal on process, should City lose the rerun.

 

[blueinsa]

Not talking about the subject matter, but the fact that since he arrived he has had little or no contact with the fans.

He is a well spoken dude and is clearly passionate about the club, it would be better if he had more contact with the supporters in the past.

Its a fair criticism and one i completely agree with.

 

[bewildered]

I think it's more a concession that Etihad is state subsidised, which the powers at the club might not want to confirm.

Of course Etihad is state subsidised, as are many big companies. Its irrelevent, the question is... is City sponsorship by Etihad fair value? Clearly Yes, and did the funds come from Etihad (directly or indirectly - doesn't matter) or ADUG? Clearly Etihad (as the Open Fair Skies document confirms).

 

[Ban-jani]

Proving the whole system is corrupt, is ran in favour and by the “elite clubs” and nailing UEFA in the courts to the point of destruction, will be greater and more satisfying than any title win.