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

[petrusha]

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 appear to be a complete U-turn from their original position. It therefore makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to prove.

Are we sure that UEFA insisted on classifying Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsors as related parties? Yes, PwC disagreed with MCFC's auditors and maintained they were, but my assumption has always been that UEFA didn't push the point, primarily because the settlement agreement dealt with the alleged overvaluations of the Etisalat and Aabar deals by way of contractual undertakings not to increase the fees under the relevant agreements for a set period. Surely they'd have just revalued them if they 'd decided to treat these entities as related parties of MCFC. With Etihad, the sponsorship was stated by PwC to be at more or less a fair value anyway, so it seems quite plausible to me that UEFA decided the related party point was irrelevant in the circumstances.

Yes, it would certainly suit us at this stage for Etihad to be classed as a related party, as it would render the fact of ADUG paying some of the cash irrelevant in he light of the PwC valuation. Though, of course, in this case MCFC could still be accused of acting in bad faith by trying to pain Etihad as a non-related party but not disclosing any channelling of cash from ADUG through the company.

 

[Chi-town blues]

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.

My guess is dippers . There’s something that doesn’t sit right about that 1 million settlement.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

This goes back to my original point. If CAS cannot access Etihads accounts & all UEFA have is a couple of hacked emails to go on then surely it has to be thrown out.

If anything, wouldn't publication of such serious prejudicial claims without proof that it did happen open them to potential libel action?

 

[manimanc]

On the streets of London I believe

I did wonder to myself.

 

[John Wayne]

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.

I'm pretty sure the Open Skies case proved it was ADEC (not ADUG) that stepped in to meet the liabilities of Etihad. Furthermore, the reference to 'HH' in an email written by Simon Pearce was not Sheikh Mansour; a key distinction in local etiquette that Pearce would have known.

 

[dickie davies]

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.

Or he looked at it and said "This is a nailed on win for you Mr Khaldoon. You really don't need to be paying me twenty grand a day when a colleague of mine can easily reinforce your evidence at a substantially less cost"

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I'm pretty sure the Open Skies case proved it was ADEC (not ADUG) that stepped in to meet the liabilities of Etihad. Furthermore, the reference to 'HH' in an email written by Simon Pearce was not Sheikh Mansour; a key distinction in local etiquette that Pearce would have known.

exactly.

 

[BolinCell]

Any news... anyone know what the fuck we were charged with yet and what our defence is. The only thing we seem guilty of is not employing anyone who knew anything about IT security.

 

[Shaelumstash]

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/

It's a bit impenetrable that mate ;-)

So going off what I can glean from that, are you basically saying even if the activities in the emails turns out to be true, we shouldn't face additional sanctions anyway?

Essentially, UEFA knew what was going on, they told us to reign it in with the AD sponsorships, we agreed and have complied ever since?

So City's argument is going to be based on the fact the settlement agreement from the 2014 breach means we can't be tried for the same thing twice?

Sorry if I've got it wrong or over-simplified your fantastically detailed article.

 

[Marvin]

The allegation of disguised owner investment falls apart if City can show that the Etihad deal was underwritten by the UAE state. And if we can convince David Conn of that, then it should be a simple matter to convince 3 'impartial' judges of that. It seems obvious to me that Sheikh mansour would be profoundly stupid and step in and underwrite the finances of the national flag carrier of the UAE. It's quite obvious to everyone that the state would step in if a national airline was in financial difficulties.

I think the case is straightforward if it comes down to technicalities but it's the politics that's awkward. In the court of public opinion we're guilty. And in the court of liberal opinion we're guilty.