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

[asahartford1]

Sheikh Mansour is probably bored now anyway.

Toys do not last forever

 

[BringBackSwales]

Haha. I'm fucking hilarious, rest assured!

A lot has changed since you were last on then

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Txiki is director of football, although I don't know his full remit I don't think he has much input on the FFP side (or does he?).

I suspect this has very little to do with Txiki. He gets his budgets and brings players in and keeps them. Very successfully too.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Will be interesting to see if he carries the can if the CAS appeal is unsuccessful, or whether Mansour and Khaldoon will keep faith in him regardless.

If Soriano goes hard not to see Txiki and Pep following suit.

 

[BillyShears]

A lot has changed since you were last on then

I was ahead of my time then. That's all.

 

[petrusha]

A two year ban will be catastrophic for the club. Both practically and in terms of the damage it will do to the club's reputation and the owners.

It will. But let's look at what we do know, i.e. information that is in the public domain:

1. We have a sponsorship contract with Etihad under which the sponsor is to receive shirt sponsorship rights plus naming rights to the stadium and area around it, including the training ground and the local light rail station.

2. That contract was accepted to have been entered into at a fair value for FFP purposes by the specialist valuers appointed by UEFA for the purpose (actually, IIRC, the neutral value was marginally below but by so little they didn't think it worth quibbling over).

3. We've performed our obligations under that fairly valued contract so as to provide Etihad with the benefits stated above.

4. Our audited accounts reflect that the monies paid under the contract were received from Etihad, as stipulated by the contract.

5. UEFA entered into a settlement agreement with MCFC in 2014 and signed off the club's compliance under a special reporting procedure in 2015 and 2016, which suggests they accepted all of the above.

We're accused of inflating sponsorship revenues under the Etihad deal. However, if it's true that Etihad has been subsidised in order to pay the full amount of the sponsorship fee, then the above suggests not that we're actually guilty of inflating the Etihad sponsorship but that people of influence in Abu Dhabi want Etihad to benefit from a sponsorship of the most successful team of the past decade in arguably the world's highest-profile domestic sporting competition in the world when its financial position wouldn't otherwise allow it to do so.

Now, all we know of UEFA's evidence that's prompted conclusions to the contrary was published as part of the Football Leaks materials. Those emails are clearly taken out of context and are open to interpretation, despite the way in which the media has universally presented them. And as published, they seem an extraordinarily flimsy basis on which to hand down the kind of punishment we've been hit with.

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

 

[BillyShears]

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

This is what it comes down to on both sides. I've got no idea what UEFA's reasoning is for the 2 year ban, and I've got no idea what City's defence will be. Therefore I'm not more confident of any one outcome than the other. A 2 year ban won't shock me and if they kick it out and say we did nothing wrong it won't shock me.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

It will. But let's look at what we do know, i.e. information that is in the public domain:

1. We have a sponsorship contract with Etihad under which the sponsor is to receive shirt sponsorship rights plus naming rights to the stadium and area around it, including the training ground and the local light rail station.

2. That contract was accepted to have been entered into at a fair value for FFP purposes by the specialist valuers appointed by UEFA for the purpose (actually, IIRC, the neutral value was marginally below but by so little they didn't think it worth quibbling over).

3. We've performed our obligations under that fairly valued contract so as to provide Etihad with the benefits stated above.

4. Our audited accounts reflect that the monies paid under the contract were received from Etihad, as stipulated by the contract.

5. UEFA entered into a settlement agreement with MCFC in 2014 and signed off the club's compliance under a special reporting procedure in 2015 and 2016, which suggests they accepted all of the above.

We're accused of inflating sponsorship revenues under the Etihad deal. However, if it's true that Etihad has been subsidised in order to pay the full amount of the sponsorship fee, then the above suggests not that we're actually guilty of inflating the Etihad sponsorship but that people of influence in Abu Dhabi want Etihad to benefit from a sponsorship of the most successful team of the past decade in arguably the world's highest-profile domestic sporting competition in the world when its financial position wouldn't otherwise allow it to do so.

Now, all we know of UEFA's evidence that's prompted conclusions to the contrary was published as part of the Football Leaks materials. Those emails are clearly taken out of context and are open to interpretation, despite the way in which the media has universally presented them. And as published, they seem an extraordinarily flimsy basis on which to hand down the kind of punishment we've been hit with.

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

Your last paragraph is the worry as I don't see UEFA going this far on the off chance they might be able to make it stick.

Theories on this thread that it would suit UEFA to lose at CAS & that we have explosive evidence against cartel clubs seem like very unlikely wishful thinking too.

 

[iwasthere1968]

I m getting ever so slightly miffed with the Neville Chamberlain approach of some on this forum.
You cannot deal with bullies in any other way than to meet them face on.
Appeasement , and accepting a 1 year ban would be , does not work. They will be back for more !

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Good to see @BillyShears and @Didsbury Dave back, though not sure about the pervading air of pessimism.

As far I can surmise there’s no way that Ceferin would be in a position to agree any deal where City wouldn’t get a ban, especially in the light of Infantino deal last time around. Equally City wouldn’t agree to a ban bearing in mind as far as City are concerned we’ve done our time.

The IC investigation was very possibly rushed due to time pressures, equally City were never likely to engage to heavily with UEFA on the basis that the source of their evidence were emails that may not have been lawfully obtained.

Once the IC investigation concluded we were only going to get a ban. At this point City must only be looking at CAS. As if they were banned they had that recourse, if they agreed to a ban then no right to appeal.

As a result City are likely to contest the legality or otherwise of UEFA’s evidence as an initial point before getting into issues of fair procedure, proportionality and double punishment. These are largely points that could only be made to CAS.

TLDR ultimately despite the views on here, this case once opened was only ever going to be decided by CAS as neither City could never agree to a mutually acceptable deal.