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

[SiMCFC]

If that’s the case and I were a gambling man, then I’d say we’re screwed. If ADUG was feeding money into Etihad with a view to it being funnelled back to us as sponsorship, my instinct (which I know counts for sod all) is that this case is too high profile for CAS to bite the bullet and throw it out on technical grounds, and the ban will be upheld

Etihads accounting/funding is fuck all to do with UEFA/CAS/CFG though...

We can't provide evidence of their accounts. It would be the same as asking Nissan where all their money comes from, fuck all to do with CFG. We can and will show money was received from them that is all.

 

[KS55]

I also raised the same point as you back on page 3051 of this thread. It seems we both agree that the evidence required to clear City is the Etihad accounts from the period in question which show an outgoing to City of the relevant amount for that financial year and no income from ADUG or Sheik Monsour.

This is the evidence required, but the counter argument I'm beginning to understand is that we are unable to show the evidence we need and will therefore be aiming to win the argument based on this all having been agreed as acceptable in the 2014 settlement agreement.

Hence the main focus of our case is to win on a technicality..

I think we will probably run 2 lines.
1. Uefa's lack of capacity to re-open settled matters.
Plus other periods out of time
2. The irrefutable evidence of our audited accounts.

 

[Prater70]

Where's Pannick? Is he there.

 

[Shaelumstash]

It's almost as if UEFA sent in PwC in 2014, didn't believe or agree our version of events, threatened to sanction the club, negotiated a settlement relating precisely to these matters, monitored us for 2 more years (obviously then knowing what to look out for), confirmed we'd satisfied the settlement agreement and moved on, only to come back to the same thing a while later....

You think so?

Surely PwC wouldn't have access to private emails?

As I understand it, we failed FFP in 2014 based on the accounts we actually published. There are a multitude of reasons for that, which PB is the authority on.

So the judgement and sanctions were nothing to do with what is inferred in these emails.

I guess it's a different debate as to whether we can be tried again for 2014 for failing by a higher margin than we reported? Would come down to the terms of the settlement I assume.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

If we do end up with a ban (1 or 2 years) then you would have to assume that heads are gonna roll as we will have been hacked twice. Once is bad enough but to be so slipshod as to allow all this highly confidential information to be put into the public domain is breathtaking negligence in my view.

 

[George Hannah]

All will be well - believe in Khaldoon

 

[tonea2003]

God I hope we have some "irrefutable evidence" because those emails don't read great do they?

well we'll be the laughing stock if we haven't after claiming we have in the strongly worded statement back in february

 

[blueparrot]

If we do end up with a ban (1 or 2 years) then you would have to assume that heads are gonna roll as we will have been hacked twice. Once is bad enough but to be so slipshod as to allow all this highly confidential information to be put into the public domain is breathtaking negligence in my view.

The result shouldn’t make any difference. If somebody is to blame for being hacked then they should have gone already anyway, they may have. If nobody has already gone then the result of the case shouldn’t be a reason to sack them.

 

[slbsn]

You think so?

Surely PwC wouldn't have access to private emails?

As I understand it, we failed FFP in 2014 based on the accounts we actually published. There are a multitude of reasons for that, which PB is the authority on.

So the judgement and sanctions were nothing to do with what is inferred in these emails.

I guess it's a different debate as to whether we can be tried again for 2014 for failing by a higher margin than we reported? Would come down to the terms of the settlement I assume.

All set out in the Conn article what UEFA believed and explained by me here. https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/...e-ffps-part-deux-the-double-city-do-not-want/

 

[M18CTID]

Interesting view but I'd argue that point is moot Peter, in the sense that it only works if we've agreed Etihad is a related party, which renders the question of who paid largely irrelevant, as long as it's fair value.

I'm still of the belief that if what Der Spiegel published was the best they had, then it wasn't good enough. We'll see.

Didn’t @projectriver post an extract from an article by David Conn earlier that despite City disagreeing, UEFA decided Etihad were a related party? If that is indeed true, then maybe there’s a different angle to this that we’re not considering. Instead of us all trying to show that our owner didn’t fund the shortfall, surely it makes no difference if he did because UEFA declared Etihad a related party? Maybe that’s the irrefutable evidence that City have. Picture the conversation:

UEFA: “We’re hitting you with a 2 year ban and a big fuck-off fine for using disguised owner investment to make up the shortfall in the Etihad deal”
City: “We’ve done nothing wrong and have irrefutable evidence to back it up”
UEFA: “Like what?”
City: “Well remember back in 2014 when we were in disagreement that Etihad were a related party or not? We said they weren’t and you said they were. We tried telling you but you wouldn’t listen. We’ve got it all here in writing from you so it’s irrelevant if our owner bailed Etihad out as you yourselves deemed them to be a related party and had signed off the sponsorship deal as being fair value. There’s our irrefutable evidence of no wrongdoing so fuck off and stop wasting our time!”