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

[Kazzydeyna]

I'm no expert either, but I suspect if it really was as straightforward as that we wouldn't be where we are now.

I know, it does sound ridiculous but all I've gleaned (and I may have read it wrong of course) is that we are accused of falsifying the original 2013/14 accounts by stating income that was actually from the owner, was funnelled through Etihad airways sponsorship agreement , thus disguising owner investment as legitimate income.

But even if we did (not saying we have) and the actual money is shown exiting Etihad accounts and entering Citys then that's the ball game right there. From a legal and accountancy standpoint there is no wrongdoing. How that money got into etihad before being paid to city is a matter of no concern to uefa or anybody else. Imagine the conversation

Uefa: "Hi Etihad, can we have a look at your books please?"
Etihad: "No. Fuck off"

I agree it cannot be so simple of course but I have faith in the resolutleness of Khaldoon and Soriano in the way they have been so adamant we have done no wrong. We shall find out soon enough I suppose.

 

[Paladin]

Far from an expert on this, but to my limited understanding if uefa claim HRH put in an extra 50m via Etihad airways and both citys accounts (audited remember) and Etihad accounts (also audited) say that all of the etihad sponsorship money came from Etihad accounts into citys then they can think what they like. From a legal pov there is no wrong doing. Game over, cheque please.

If only life were that simple.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Far from an expert on this, but to my limited understanding if uefa claim HRH put in an extra 50m via Etihad airways and both citys accounts (audited remember) and Etihad accounts (also audited) say that all of the etihad sponsorship money came from Etihad accounts into citys then they can think what they like. From a legal pov there is no wrong doing. Game over, cheque please.

This is what puzzles me as well.
Uefa can see our accounts, which will include evidence that etihad met their contractual obligations to City. Uefa may see that as within their own remit to investigate, which it is, under their regs, but since they have no right to, and etihad have no obligation to, let uefa see their business accounts, they (uefa) can have no evidence as to where the money came from apart from some wobbly unsubstantiated and presumably unsubstantiatable stolen emails.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

I'm no expert either

Luckily you have a forum full of them...

 

[MillionMilesAway]

What confuses things is the constant repetition in the media of the phrase "inflated sponsorship deals." It implies that the money we received was higher than that declared in the accounts and that somehow we have got an unfair advantage by working "off books". The allegations are nothing to do with the figures but relate to the source of our sponsorship ie did it come direct from our owner or from Etihad?
We don't even know what the Etihad revenue was used for. If it was infrastructure development it would be exempt from FFP anyway. What a bloody farce this whole saga has been.

Yes, that's right as I see it. It's all to do with the related parties, ultimate source, etc.
As you say, "inflated deals" is a terrible explanation, as it suggests there to be intentional underhand practice.

I don't think assigning the use revenue was put to is important. The club only have one set of accounts, and all income goes into the pot before expenses come out.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Far from an expert on this, but to my limited understanding if uefa claim HRH put in an extra 50m via Etihad airways and both citys accounts (audited remember) and Etihad accounts (also audited) say that all of the etihad sponsorship money came from Etihad accounts into citys then they can think what they like. From a legal pov there is no wrong doing. Game over, cheque please.

That part does seem to come down to "can you prove it?" to me.
If the CFCB financial chambers can view it as "can you prove it's not true?", it's very different (and on the face of it, a bit bonkers).

 

[SilverFox2]

I always love how they think we're going to pay off the independent judiciary, but didn't bother with UEFA, an organisation that's got a long history of accepting bribes.

If a bribe was going to work, it would have happened when we were getting investigated, not when we'd already been pronounced guilty, banned, and had 9 months of attack pieces in the press across Europe.

Not sure our owners have been that bothered about whether we are idolised by the media or not. They bought as an investment and it is certainly now proving its worth.
Win or lose at CAS things will not change regarding the media so if g14 legacy have found a way to stifle our earnings we must fight to defend the BP that our initial owner speculated upon.

Media hatred of us is a long term given, lets see what the first stage of our litigation process achieves. Perhaps everything, perhaps nothing, perhaps a few steps.
Whatever the outcome I feel the old City finding its way in a resentful sector has gone.
We have equity partners with expectations and an aggressive reaction to things that threaten development.

As others have said f### the rest and their media friends.

 

[richards30]

I know, it does sound ridiculous but all I've gleaned (and I may have read it wrong of course) is that we are accused of falsifying the original 2013/14 accounts by stating income that was actually from the owner, was funnelled through Etihad airways sponsorship agreement , thus disguising owner investment as legitimate income.

But even if we did (not saying we have) and the actual money is shown exiting Etihad accounts and entering Citys then that's the ball game right there. From a legal and accountancy standpoint there is no wrongdoing. How that money got into etihad before being paid to city is a matter of no concern to uefa or anybody else. Imagine the conversation

Uefa: "Hi Etihad, can we have a look at your books please?"
Etihad: "No. Fuck off"

I agree it cannot be so simple of course but I have faith in the resolutleness of Khaldoon and Soriano in the way they have been so adamant we have done no wrong. We shall find out soon enough I suppose.

@Prestwich_Blue maybe colin can confirm but i`m sure its been discussed that as long as the money came out of etihads account and has been accounted properly in their books then it doesnt matter how the money got there?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Luckily you have a forum full of them...

I've been caught out quoting some of our more knowledgeable people on here about how we would not get banned, and makes you look stupid. I take things here with a wry smile and wait and see.

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

I know, it does sound ridiculous but all I've gleaned (and I may have read it wrong of course) is that we are accused of falsifying the original 2013/14 accounts by stating income that was actually from the owner, was funnelled through Etihad airways sponsorship agreement , thus disguising owner investment as legitimate income.

But even if we did (not saying we have) and the actual money is shown exiting Etihad accounts and entering Citys then that's the ball game right there. From a legal and accountancy standpoint there is no wrongdoing. How that money got into etihad before being paid to city is a matter of no concern to uefa or anybody else. Imagine the conversation

Uefa: "Hi Etihad, can we have a look at your books please?"
Etihad: "No. Fuck off"

I agree it cannot be so simple of course but I have faith in the resolutleness of Khaldoon and Soriano in the way they have been so adamant we have done no wrong. We shall find out soon enough I suppose.

Thats great logic pmsl