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

[Centurions]

UEFA will resumably have the evidence they gathered in support of the original case back in 2014. We know that showed they thought the minor Abu Dhabi sponsorships were overvalued. We know they thought Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar were all related parties. Possibly this is what they're referring to.

I thought they'd agreed that Etihad were not related but that Etisalat and Aabar were (and we acknowledged such)? Perhaps I'm getting different things mixed up.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I thought they'd agreed that Etihad were not related but that Etisalat and Aabar were (and we acknowledged such)? Perhaps I'm getting different things mixed up.

They tried to claim that all were related, which meant they could apply the 'fair value' test to those sponsorships. In the end, that never got tested properly but they seemed to accept that the Etihad deal was pretty fair. So nothing was ever agreed on the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. We failed FFP and it really wasn't material whether they were or not.

 

[M18CTID]

maybe there's something in the original settlement that they now want to pick at now they've got Infantino and Platini out of the way.

Could work both ways that, as we also had issues with them changing the toolkit at the last minute which was the difference between us possibly passing and definitely failing but we “took the pinch” so to speak

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I feel like those two astronauts from last weekend on Falcon 9

We're all suited up, we are doing the comms checks, going through the protocols, the fuelling of the rocket...

Time to light this candle and hopefully it's a blue moon on the day!

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I feel like those two astronauts from last weekend on Falcon 9

We're all suited up, we are doing the comms checks, going through the protocols, the fuelling of the rocket...

Time to light this candle and hopefully it's a blue moon on the day!

and then we explode on the launchpad?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

and then we explode on the launchpad?

That's not what happened last week ;)

We also have people who know what they are doing and are experts in their field!

 

[remember arthur mann]

Should walk this, payback time for us throwing the last two Derby matches !

 

[waspish]

maybe there's something in the original settlement that they now want to pick at now they've got Infantino and Platini out of the way.

Yep that settlement that had one day left before they couldn’t use it!

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

They tried to claim that all were related, which meant they could apply the 'fair value' test to those sponsorships. In the end, that never got tested properly but they seemed to accept that the Etihad deal was pretty fair. So nothing was ever agreed on the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. We failed FFP and it really wasn't material whether they were or not.

Would this mean that they are still claiming that Etihad are a related party and that City have increased the value of the sponsorship but that the Sheikh (Mansour) has paid the difference? If they have been through our accounts they would surely have noticed this sooner and not let us exit the settlement regime? And does this really constitute a "serious" breach of FFP, especially in the light of the doubling of the Jeep deal with Juventus?

 

[The Colonel]

I think City are probably really feeling about 60%-65% confident of winning at CAS. No such process is guaranteed and even the best cases can lose. I'd say few cases have better than 70% certainty. The club are obviously not super confident because you can see how little we are doing in the transfer market - Chilwell is a perfect example. I think we will be very cautious until we have more certainty on the situation.

But likewise, I believe they are confident in the strength of their defence - the public statements are very bold and it seems inconceivable that Silverlake didn't get sight of a very strong legal opinion in advance of its investment. In fact its probable that CFG had to agree to a clause in the investment agreement that CFG had complied with laws, regulations etc. On the flipside, this probably also means that it is exposed to a sizeable claim (known as a warranty claim) from Silverlake in the event it is found to have breached by CAS.

Although our lack of transfer activity may more be a reflection of other parties’ lack of confidence in the outcome.