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

[slbsn]

You only have to show that money came to City from the sponsor under a contract, not where the sponsor got it from. Our audited accounts, plus possibly some bank statements, would trump those emails.

Yes and are very likely the "irrefutable evidence" City keep referring to.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I would be arguing they absolutely address that. a) the money actually came into the right company b) (presumably) the monies related to a contract between the right company and Etihad c) if a and b are true (and they should have been checked in the audit) then how Etihad raised those funds is not relevant because the Etihad deal even if a related party was at fair value.

In any event those emails in themselves are far from sufficient to support an inference that the accounts and contracts themselves are wrong or false.

Quite so, and I don’t doubt that City’s accounts are absolutely bona fide, but the issue (in terms of what UEFA appear to be training their guns on) is that those accounts are irrelevant in as much as they wouldn’t contain a record of how Sheikh Mansour spends his personal wealth. If I was UEFA I would want to see Etihad’s accounts as much as City’s, because they would show if Sheikh Mansour had given the airline money. However, if that isn’t an issue after all, then all well and good for us?
Either way, I’ll be glad when this is over and I can go back to just worrying about whether we’ll beat Arsenal at the weekend! My brain hurts! No wonder Paul Merson can’t understand it......

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We've been over this multiple times. You are conflating cash with the legal and audit position. There is obviously a contract between City and Etihad. That presumably has obligations on Etihad (and Etihad alone) to settle. Where that cash comes from to satisfy the legal obligations of Etihad is not City's concern. Then there is the question of who Etihad are and whether they are related party. If they are related is the contract deemed at fair value or does it need to be adjusted. So there is no disguise. It is either related and fair valued (as it was in 2014) or its not related in which case the contract is the only important factor. In any event, this was one of the precise matters covered in 2014.

This is what Conn was briefed in Jan 2020:

"In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline.

City have strenuously rejected the conclusion that Etihad or the other two companies are related to City under the rules, arguing Uefa needed to show Mansour had substantial influence over their management, not just that he was the chairman of the funds owning them.

Uefa is understood to have asked specialist sponsorship consultants to consider whether the money being paid to City by the Abu Dhabi companies was “fair value”. The Etihad deal is thought not to have been considered too excessive."

In other words, it was moot in the end because a) City breached by a mile and b) it was settled.

It is therefore not relevant.

ADUG definitely IS a related party to City. There's simply no doubt about that. Therefore any transaction involving revenue to or from them should have been reported as such. If ADUG knew that they were injecting funds into City, via a revenue stream attributable to supposedly non-related third party (i.e. Etihad) then that's a related party transaction. If City weren't aware of this, then that's ADUG's problem but uEFA might conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, they were or should have been

While I'm not expert on accounting rules, I'd also say that if ADUG were giving money to Etihad, they were accepting it and passing it on to us, then there's possibly a case for declaring Etihad to be a related party. Which is probably what we should have done in the first place to be honest.

 

[ancoats]

another question that needs answering is why only manchester city are getting punished from the so called leaked emails ? my understanding is many other stuff was leaked and corruption in the game and match fixing and players cheating and missing dope test or failed test it was a big document so why only manchester city ???

uefa are using the FFP on manchester city to hide all the other shit and they want to look Mr clean in all of this ? but leaked document was also about
corruption at the top and players and clubs breaking 3rd party rules


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_Leaks

 

[Bodicoteblue]

City did come out with that line on more than one occasion but I think that was before UEFA opened an investigation so there really was no more to say. Since then the club have expanded on that and also said they have “irrefutable evidence” that proves we have done nothing wrong. I doubt this irrefutable evidence is just a copy of our audited accounts. At least, I hope it isn’t. Indeed, without knowing what it is, we do know that there is other evidence regarding where Etihad got their money from to help prop them up and it’s in the public domain - the Open Skies dispute document is available for anyone to peruse and that states ADEC, not ADUG, bailed them out.

I don’t understand why adug would need to channel money through etihad.
Etihad airlines, is as far as I know, a state owned enterprise and is therefore open to receiving state subsidies, if needed, to meet their business and contractual obligations, so if they fell short of money to meet their deal with City, then the government of Abu Dhabi ( which as we all know does not own us) can legitimately supply those funds, no matter how much the US airlines squeal and cry foul.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I am glad that many on here have posted in to say that the decision CAS makes will have no influence at all on the depth of their support for City but this really is not the issue. Sheikh Mansour has left no aspect of the club untouched so that it is now at the centre of a global group valued at $5 billion, our club on its own is one of the richest in the world with world a class training campus and so on. To do this Sheikh Mansour has invested rather more than £1.5 billion. Yet the club at the centre of this rebirth is threatened with virtual ruin because the governing body of European football claims, on the basis of god knows what "evidence", that Sheikh Mansour has actually concealed some of this investment as payments from Etihad airline.

What is mind boggling is that UEFA has found the club guilty of serious breaches of its financial fair play. It is almost certainly the case that these rules cannot be enforced in a court of law and they are almost certain to be dispensed with in the near future, but at the moment they actually allow clubs to do what City were sanctioned for in 2014 but they still impose limits on owner investment and UEFA argues that "the balance of probabilities" is that the Sheikh exceeded these limits. Even though UEFA now accepts the need to attract investment and will suspend and get rid of these limits before long, it still hopes that City can be royally stuffed as a last hurrah for the rules!

What is even barmier, what is a standing affront to the sense of decency, is that UEFA claims that these ludicrous rules add up to "financial fair play"! These rules are the only way to protect the financial stability of football clubs since owner spending gets clubs into unsustainable debt. So we'll clobber the one debt free club in England! Only revenue from sponsors is reliable. So as long as your money comes from car companies that don't sell a single car in Europe, or even better from noodle suppliers we'll pretend your half a billion debt doesn't exist. Even better if your revenue comes from companies that Launder Iranian cash! We can trust them not to disguise money from the owner.

So on Thursday let's have a "clap for UEFA day" - you know you can trust them to protect the beautiful game.

 

[slbsn]

ADUG definitely IS a related party to City. There's simply no doubt about that. Therefore any transaction involving revenue to or from them should have been reported as such. If ADUG knew that they were injecting funds into City, via a revenue stream attributable to supposedly non-related third party (i.e. Etihad) then that's a related party transaction. If City weren't aware of this, then that's ADUG's problem but uEFA might conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, they were or should have been

While I'm not expert on accounting rules, I'd also say that if ADUG were giving money to Etihad, they were accepting it and passing it on to us, then there's possibly a case for declaring Etihad to be a related party. Which is probably what we should have done in the first place to be honest.

We never had any contract with ADUG for sponsorship. The contracts were with various other AD based companies. So there is no contract to test with ADUG. If ADUG were owners/controllers/had common owners etc (can't recall all the tests) Etihad then UEFA would have deemed Etihad related (as they did), ADUG itself would remain irrelevant. Again, we then look at the Etihad and City contract. Assuming the obligations are all Etihad's, we don't then go and look at the REVENUE streams or even CASH FLOWS of Etihad. The rules relate to ownership of those entities.

But as I have said Etihad WERE considered related by UEFA despite City's protestations. It was moot because the contract value was not excessive.

 

[bluecityste]

If I was UEFA I would want to see Etihad’s accounts as much as City’s, because they would show if Sheikh Mansour had given the airline money.

Only if the ADUG / the Sheik was deemed to be a related party to Etihad by their accountants/auditors, otherwise I suspect that the detail regarding any potential injection of funds would be limited to being grouped with any similar funds/balances on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) and notes to the financial statements.....the actual detail would probably be thin on the ground (pun intended).

 

[hihosilva]

Do CAS have the authority to look at Etihad's accounts? If not how do UEFA prove unequivocally that Mansour paid Etihad the sponsorship money. Surely a couple of hacked emails is not sufficient to sanction us.
I get emails from an African prince every few months telling me he wants to put £40mil pounds into my account.

 

[PrestwichBlue2]

Quite so, and I don’t doubt that City’s accounts are absolutely bona fide, but the issue (in terms of what UEFA appear to be training their guns on) is that those accounts are irrelevant in as much as they wouldn’t contain a record of how Sheikh Mansour spends his personal wealth. If I was UEFA I would want to see Etihad’s accounts as much as City’s, because they would show if Sheikh Mansour had given the airline money. However, if that isn’t an issue after all, then all well and good for us?
Either way, I’ll be glad when this is over and I can go back to just worrying about whether we’ll beat Arsenal at the weekend! My brain hurts! No wonder Paul Merson can’t understand it......

I can imagine it now:
'Hi is that Etihad, its UEFA here could we kindly have a audit of your accounts'?
'Hi UEFA, get fucked, regards Etihad'.