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

[mrbelfry]

Mrbelfry why have we failed when PSG who were guilty of the same thing that we were. They only got away with it because they had someone appointed to one of the UEFA boards. This smells to me like double standards by UEFA. This would be another argument that I would be putting before the CAS hearing when ever that maybe.

PSG also failed and were punished. From memory they had their sponsorship revenue slashed quite dramatically which meant they had to sell several squad members to comply in future seasons. I don't doubt there is politics at play but I don't think it is fair to say PSG 'got away with it' - the PSG fan who posts on here (sorry can't remember the username) has explained several times the process that PSG have had to go through.

In this current situation we are not being punished for the same thing as PSG. We both failed FFP in the same period. We have both been punished for that. We are now being accused of falsely inflating sponsorship revenues as part of that submission period - that's a bit vague to me and I don't know if UEFA have clarified but probably means we said a certain amount came from Etihad or whoever but they claim it came from Sheik Mansour. In essence then we and our auditors committed fraud on the accounts. Their 'evidence' is the Der Spiegal articles.

We've also been accused of failing to co-operate with the investigation. Can't remember where I read it but there was a claim we refused to produce some documents at some point when some UEFA bods rocked up at the office. I doubt we gave them passwords to Khaldoons email which may also be classed as non co-operation. I think there were also some documents which were produced that hadn't been signed from sponsors.

To counter this City have said our accounts are accurate. Emails are stolen and out of context. We have co-operated and the IC ignored our evidence. The investigation was flawed and not conducted in good faith - ie we were declared guilty before the investigation had been concluded. I can't remember if City have ever said it but there would also be concern about who is part of the IC and their relationship with other clubs which may result in city appearing un-cooperative and may add to the good faith argument.

These charges are related to the first breach of FFP but we are not being done for breaching FFP again so what did or didn't happen to PSG when they failed FFP probably isn't relevant to our case. In fact our failing FFP and how we feel about that is probably not relevant to the current case at CAS.

The issues are did we 'falsely inflate sponsorship value' and were we 'un-coperative'. We've strongly denied both and we also may argue on matters of procedure (ie the case was too late according to UEFA's own policies - as far as I know this is what happened with the last PSG case where UEFA tried to curtail their sponsorship revenue again - ie not getting away with it).

Obviously this could all be wrong - I'm just a guy who reads Bluemoon - but there is so much muddying of the case that is unhelpful to City as it leaves room for accusations and rumours. That's why I think it is important that we are clear and concise so that the machinations at UEFA get exposed rather than hide in the shadows.

 

[mrbelfry]

That's correct.

had to double check with your bolt in the blue article :)

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

My understanding is that we failed ffp. The wages we were attempting to 'write off' only come in to play because we failed. Writing the pre 2010 contracted wages back in to the calculations because we had failed should have seen us escape punishment but would still have seen us fail ffp. Those wages were not an allowable cost but a mitigating factor. It's a bit of a pedantic point but an important one

Mr Platini - blessed be his name - went out of his way to tell us that the settlement of 2014 was for the club's own good and was to protect us from Sheikh Mansour's reckless spending which threatened to undermine the club's financial stability. This was indeed the justification for controlling the club's wage bill and limiting its spending on transfers. One analyst (journalist, in fact) told us very recently that this is where UEFA had been very clever; they justified FFP on the grounds of protection of financial stability and not on grounds of competition. Unfortunately, poor Mr Platini never managed to explain what the threat to City's financial stability actually was or how limiting our squad to 21 instead of 25 in the champions league and imposing a world record sporting fine on the club was going to contribute to making the club's finances more stable. He tried to tell the football world that City would be grateful to UEFA if Sheikh Mansour "walked away" though his insulting remarks failed to explain why Sheikh Mansour would want to do this having outlined a ten year plan for the club in September 2008! Nor did he try to explain how an FA cup, a league cup, two league titles, record revenues, an operating profit, no debt and a considerably enlarged stadium would leave us in a financial mess. What made it even more laughable and exposed the truly ridiculous stupidity of Platini's flagship regulations has been the fate of those clubs who jumped ship to support FFP exactly because it was about limiting competition and not at all about financial stability. We know which clubs they are, who saw that City were too competitive for their good and had to be nobbled. They went on piling up the debt but passing the break even requirement and satisfying UEFA that they are "financially stable". But City? Amongst the pack of lies and made up stories a German rag has published are claims that sponsorship deals which have been inflated and paid by City's owner. There's not a shred of evidence that this is anything other than another pack of lies peddled by a scurrilous scandal sheet but UEFA have taken them seriously enough to impose a two year ban and a 30 million euro fine for breaches of these FFP regulations. City still operate at a profit and are still debt free, there is not even the pretence of any threat to our club's financial stability and City are doing nothing which is against the law anywhere in Europe. In fact City are a model of propriety. Chelsea, Manchester United, Barcelona, Real Madrid and many other clubs are more heavily in debt than ever. Much of this may be of no concern to CAS, who will be concerned only with the procedure of the IC and AC and with evidence produced to prove if any breaches have taken place or not. The European court, on the other hand, will give serious consideration to the FFP regulations and their rationale. I think it most probable by far that the ECJ will sling them out as totally at odds with the law, but if they do decide there are grounds for "sporting exception" it is highly unlikely to see a body made up of officials whose loyalties are to specific clubs as a competent body to regulate the financial affairs of all clubs, it will demand a justification far more compelling and consistent than Platini's absurd and pathetic attempt and it will not tolerate a governing body which punishes those clubs whose stability is not threatened while refusing to draft regulations which do nothing to deal with management at those clubs under real threat.

 

[mrbelfry]

Mr Platini - blessed be his name - went out of his way to tell us that the settlement of 2014 was for the club's own good and was to protect us from Sheikh Mansour's reckless spending which threatened to undermine the club's financial stability.

Probably his biggest problem was that none of Sheikh Mansour's reckless spending ended up in his pocket but threatened to undermine his financial stability.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Probably his biggest problem was that none of Sheikh Mansour's reckless spending ended up in his pocket but threatened to undermine his financial stability.

I think when we look at the circumstances leading to our "failure" to comply in 2014 and then Platini's statements in his triumphalist phase we can see clearly what a stupid man Platini was - frequently saying he couldn't answer questions on FFP because he didn't really understand it - how no-one from UEFA was ever quite sure what problems it was supposed to address and how it never actually dealt with any of the problems it was supposed to address, we can see what a desperate, hasty, illogical mess FFP was. They've amended it since but this has only emphasised what a farce it was and still is and the latest episode with City is so patently devoid of any justifiable motive that I cannot see any court of law entertaining it for a minute.

 

[KS55]

PSG also failed and were punished. From memory they had their sponsorship revenue slashed quite dramatically which meant they had to sell several squad members to comply in future seasons. I don't doubt there is politics at play but I don't think it is fair to say PSG 'got away with it' - the PSG fan who posts on here (sorry can't remember the username) has explained several times the process that PSG have had to go through.

In this current situation we are not being punished for the same thing as PSG. We both failed FFP in the same period. We have both been punished for that. We are now being accused of falsely inflating sponsorship revenues as part of that submission period - that's a bit vague to me and I don't know if UEFA have clarified but probably means we said a certain amount came from Etihad or whoever but they claim it came from Sheik Mansour. In essence then we and our auditors committed fraud on the accounts. Their 'evidence' is the Der Spiegal articles.

We've also been accused of failing to co-operate with the investigation. Can't remember where I read it but there was a claim we refused to produce some documents at some point when some UEFA bods rocked up at the office. I doubt we gave them passwords to Khaldoons email which may also be classed as non co-operation. I think there were also some documents which were produced that hadn't been signed from sponsors.

To counter this City have said our accounts are accurate. Emails are stolen and out of context. We have co-operated and the IC ignored our evidence. The investigation was flawed and not conducted in good faith - ie we were declared guilty before the investigation had been concluded. I can't remember if City have ever said it but there would also be concern about who is part of the IC and their relationship with other clubs which may result in city appearing un-cooperative and may add to the good faith argument.

These charges are related to the first breach of FFP but we are not being done for breaching FFP again so what did or didn't happen to PSG when they failed FFP probably isn't relevant to our case. In fact our failing FFP and how we feel about that is probably not relevant to the current case at CAS.

The issues are did we 'falsely inflate sponsorship value' and were we 'un-coperative'. We've strongly denied both and we also may argue on matters of procedure (ie the case was too late according to UEFA's own policies - as far as I know this is what happened with the last PSG case where UEFA tried to curtail their sponsorship revenue again - ie not getting away with it).

Obviously this could all be wrong - I'm just a guy who reads Bluemoon - but there is so much muddying of the case that is unhelpful to City as it leaves room for accusations and rumours. That's why I think it is important that we are clear and concise so that the machinations at UEFA get exposed rather than hide in the shadows.

There is some confusion about PSG. Were there two cases?
Certainly in one case Leterme cleared them, the judge in the AC said that was "clearly wrong" and tries to reopen the case. PSG appealed to CAS. CAS ruled it was out of time and that the previous clearing was final and binding.
EDIT https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...int-germain-decision-upheld-cas-a8830166.html
NOTE I have amended the two final sentences above, for accuracy.
Final Edit. PSG were sanctioned when we first were, but the ruling by Leterme was in a later case. The parisian poster was either mistaken or pulling the wool.

 

[mrbelfry]

There is some confusion about PSG. Were there two cases?
Certainly in one case Leterme cleared them, the judge in the AC said that was "clearly wrong" and sent the case to CAS. CAS ruled it was out of time.

I think but not 100% sure they got done at the same time as us and had the Qatari Tourism sponsorship reduced. Someone tried to get that reduced even further - still related to the same case and it was that which was ruled out of time.

 

[KS55]

I think but not 100% sure they got done at the same time as us and had the Qatari Tourism sponsorship reduced. Someone tried to get that reduced even further - still related to the same case and it was that which was ruled out of time.

I have amended my post. Read again and check link. You are correct: two cases.

 

[KS55]

I have amended my post. Read again and check link. You are correct: two cases.

Absolutely no connection: the president of Bein Sports, who is also president of PSG, signed a big deal with UEFA for broadcasting rights just before Leterme ruled that PSG were compliant. Oh and he coincidently became a member of UEFA Exec.

 

[oakiecokie]

Absolutely no connection: the president of Bein Sports, who is also president of PSG, signed a big deal with UEFA for broadcasting rights just before Leterme ruled that PSG were compliant. Oh and he coincidently became a member of UEFA Exec.

And who says footballs NOT bent ??