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

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

?

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  1. Two-year ban upheld

    175 vote(s)
    12.2%
  2. Ban reduced to one year

    418 vote(s)
    29.2%
  3. Ban overturned and City exonerated

    775 vote(s)
    54.1%
  4. Other

    65 vote(s)
    4.5%
  1. nmc

    nmc

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    14,081
    Location:
    Manchester
    Correct so long as it doesn't come from our owner ! Having heard Tabas et al - I do wonder if this is all hot air and UEFA don't really have anything more than a few leaked emails that they are interpreting however they feel suits their purpose.
     
    richards30 likes this.
  2. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2009
    Messages:
    75,358
    Location:
    by the pool
    That’s exactly correct. No laws were broken whatever took place so there’s nothing that can be done if the money flowed from Etihad to City. UEFA have no power to see Etihad’s books.
     
    richards30 likes this.
  3. SWP's back

    SWP's back

    Joined:
    29 Jun 2009
    Messages:
    75,358
    Location:
    by the pool
    UEFA have no authority to audit Etihad to see where it came anyway.
     
    chesterbells likes this.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. manimanc

    manimanc

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    19,529
    Location:
    breaking into heaven.....
    Is this court case from 2014?

    And we are now nearly half way through 2020?

    I mean what the funk is going on?
     
  5. mccity

    mccity

    Joined:
    14 Jun 2010
    Messages:
    10,455
    Location:
    SebastianBlue: mccity is very, very often on point
    Are City even going to appeal the email thing? I would have thought that the whole approach would have been to make the case that the IC had not fairly/properly processed their initial judgement before making their referral to the AC?
     
  6. KS55

    KS55

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2016
    Messages:
    6,707
    Iirc, Etihad made a statement at the time of our appearance before the control bodies, that they themselves paid all the sponsorship money.
     
  7. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    50,454
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    Yes and no. It's more complicated than that.

    If we can show, say, £50m coming in from Etihad for a year's sponsorship then that's fine, unless UEFA can prove some or all of that money came directly from ADUG. Even then, if Etihad is deemed to be a related party (which UEFA was seemingly trying to claim in 2014) and the sponsorship is deemed to be fair value, then it's completely irrelevant where the money came from. On the other hand, if Etihad isn't deemed to be a related party and UEFA can show some of that sponsorship came from ADUG, then that would class as disguised owner investment.

    We know, with some degree of certainty, that Etihad only paid a minor part of the sponsorship out of their own pocket. The Der Spiegel articles that revealed that explicitly claimed that the additional money came from ADUG, which on the surface is pretty damning (if Etihad isn't a related party of course). However I've shown that the 'HH' referred to in the email is far more likely to have been Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the Crown Prince. I've also shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, which MBZ heads, were funding the Etihad sponsorship, at least in 2010.

    So to summarise:
    • Is Etihad a related party? If yes, then if the sponsorship is 'fair value' it's fine, however it's funded. If no, then the source of funding could be crucial, if it's directly from ADUG. Even so, if City can show that money originally came from ADEC then we've done nothing wrong.
    • Were Aabar & Etisalat related parties? If so, and the sponsorships weren't deemed fair value, then the excess should have been subtracted from relevant income. But UEFA didn't do that, even knowing the value of the sponsorships at the time, if not the source of funding.
    • UEFA seemingly tried to argue that all three were related parties in 2014 and that the sponsorship from the two other companies were overvalued. We didn't accept that they were related parties (and we had good grounds not to). We did agree not to increase the smaller two though.
    • UEFA would therefore have prove that Etihad (as well as Aabar & Etisalat) weren't related parties, which is directly opposed to their 2014 position (which was that they were) and that the original source of any additional funding was ADUG and ADUG only.
    Had those made the difference to us passing and failing FFP then we might be in trouble if they could prove it was disguised owner investment that made the difference. But it didn't. We failed anyway & were sanctioned (and that's another story altogether, as I've said).

    It's like the police clocking you speeding at 37 in a 30 limit and you accepting a speed awareness course, which you attend. Then they write to you and say that you were really doing 40 and they're going to summons you and you'll get 3 points.
     
    Last edited: 20 May 2020
  8. KS55

    KS55

    Joined:
    14 Oct 2016
    Messages:
    6,707
    The point about equity partners is well made. Even if CFG were relaxed after a positive verdict, those partners might not be and would want aggressive action against press libels. Mansour, however, still controls CFG, but would not want to disappoint the partners.
     
  9. BringBackSwales

    BringBackSwales

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2009
    Messages:
    15,532
    It may be damned by faint praise but you are undoubtedly the brainiest bloke on Blue Moon
     
    Prestwich_Blue likes this.
  10. Stortz

    Stortz

    Joined:
    12 Jun 2011
    Messages:
    1,547
    Location:
    Chorley blue
    It’s as plain as the nose on Bacon chops face what the g14 are trying to do hear maximum damage so we can never get back to where we are again. Surely any independent court can see just exactly what’s going on. But we’ve been shafted and treated unfairly since 2008 I just pray that going through an independent court and not eufa’s kangaroo court sees an end to all this utter bollocks but I’m not holding my breath it just feels like everyone is against us we aren’t wanted and never will be, but that just makes me love my club even more and I would love nothing more than to win this case and tell those horrible bent bastards to fuck off once and for all!
     

Share This Page