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

[PannickAtTheDisco]

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

not really, surely it's within the realm of CAS to comprehend that that sort of evidence from a third party is unrealistic to obtain in the first place.

It's like a child writing a letter to Santa Claus and somebody asking them to prove they received presents from Santa by taking them to North Pole. It's not within the child's remit to provide that evidence and it can prove it received the presents legitimately.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

Etihad’s accounting may be fuck all to do with anyone, but the reality is there’s some (IMO) very persuasive emails suggesting we indulged in some wholesale owner investment using Etihad as the conduit.....which is why we’re now involved in a Court case that has the potential to ruin us for years to come.

 

[xgorton]

Where's Pannick? Is he there.

He's with Boris and Lord Lucan.

 

[Ric]

Where's Pannick? Is he there.

No, he didn't take the case in the end.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Haven’t been following this the last couple of days. Is there any news?

 

[radcliffe1309]

Haven’t been following this the last couple of days. Is there any news?

No nothing at all

 

[paulchapo]

I'm not confident we will win this case at all for a number of reasons, but maybe it is my 35 years of suffering too many " Typical City" moments that makes me feel so pessimistic.

Firstly they dont want us at the party and never have. We have put too many noses out of joint. People say we are rich and powerful but so are all the clubs working against us and they are united in their efforts and we stand alone.

Secondly in every dealings we have had with UEFA I have heard all the positive noises and marvelled at intelligent well meaning posters stating we have nothing to worry about, we have a cast iron case, we will win.....then we failed.

Thirdly I dont trust any of them. EUFA, CAS, none of them. Football is a huge money making business and where there is money and vested interest there is always corruption. Always. We are up against it make no mistake and I, along with all Blue's, will be delighted if my fears are proved unfounded.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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!”

That's exactly what I would be saying to them and I've said this before. They (or PWC) claimed Etihad is a related party, along with the other Abu Dhabi sponsors. They apparently reduced the sponsorships of those other ones, according to Conn, or at least that was their suggestion/recommendation. Whether UEFA actually applied that reduction for the other sponsorships, they seem to have accepted Etihad was in the right sort of ball park. So Sheikh Mansour could have funded every penny of that as that's allowed under FFP.

If they are trying to prove now that they aren't related parties and that we've knowingly received owner investment, that would appeear to be a complete U-turn from their original position. It therefore makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to prove.

 

[meltonblue]

Etihad’s accounting may be fuck all to do with anyone, but the reality is there’s some (IMO) very persuasive emails suggesting we indulged in some wholesale owner investment using Etihad as the conduit.....which is why we’re now involved in a Court case that has the potential to ruin us for years to come.

The issue to me is more, if it is funded directly from ADUG to us, we forgot to use Etihad as the conduit. Had it been from ADUG to Etihad to us then there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

I am increasingly convinced if those emails are true, this was all due to ADUG helping out Etihad. I just hope there are subsequent emails showing it did go through Etihads books.

 

[BongoBlue]

No, he didn't take the case in the end.

He didn't? I knew there was a possibility of this but I thought he was still leading the legal team?
Not a good sign I suppose if he reviewed the case and decided not to take it.