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

[CC1]

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.

That’s an assumption. Perhaps more likely that his previous cases & involvement with other UAE countries caused a conflict of interest??

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Either way, there's publicly available information in the Open Skies agreement which counters that accusation before we even have to worry about getting Etihad's accounts out.

 

[Rammy 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!”

This was similar to what I was going to post as a reply to an earlier comment from @projectriver as I was struggling to see exactly what UEFA’s case is as we’ve already been classed as having Etihad as a related party. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me, I don’t quite get exactly what we are being charged with, lol.

 

[manimanc]

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.

I really think UEFA are getting pushed into this from the other members on the UEFA board who have ties with clubs in the G14 and have a huge gripe with our club.

 

[BongoBlue]

That’s an assumption. Perhaps more likely that his previous cases & involvement with other UAE countries caused a conflict of interest??

Wasn't aware of his previous involvement with other UAE countries. That sounds a lot more plausible to me as to why he didn't take ours then.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

This was similar to what I was going to post as a reply to an earlier comment from @projectriver as I was struggling to see exactly what UEFA’s case is as we’ve already been classed as having Etihad as a related party. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me, I don’t quite get exactly what we are being charged with, lol.

My head’s spinning mate. I have no idea what’s legal, what’s dodgy, what constitutes evidence, what doesn’t, or what the charges are, anymore. I long for the day when I can just watch football again without all this fucking agg

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

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

I’m not sure you can read too much into them, they span several years and there were likely scores or even hundreds of emails on the subject of sponsorship/investment during that time.

If you were to look at some of my emails about certain customer accounts and selected 3 or 4 from several years worth, I’m pretty sure you could come up with something that looked dodgy.

I can honestly believe looking at those emails that they have been taken out of context exactly as city claim

 

[Paulpowersleftfoot]

Where's Pannick? Is he there.

On the streets of London I believe

 

[Blue Maverick]

On the streets of London I believe

Oh do one, ha ha

 

[Rammy Blue]

My head’s spinning mate. I have no idea what’s legal, what’s dodgy, what constitutes evidence, what doesn’t, or what the charges are, anymore. I long for the day when I can just watch football again without all this fucking agg

You know “we” are going to struggle when can’t even get @Prestwich_Blue and @projectriver on the same page!