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

[Magicpole]

Thanks for the update mate. Where have you seen this?

I heard it on the news at 1

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Having just read PBs piece and then comparing against the article in the NYT which says:

Many of the allegations of financial impropriety and rule-breaking lodged against Manchester City came to light after they were reported by news media outlets with access to the so-called Football Leaks files. The files are said to include emails and internal club documents showing efforts by City to circumvent UEFA’s financial fair-play regulations by masking cash infusions from a United Arab Emirates state-backed investment company through inflated sponsorship agreements with entities including the U.A.E.’s national airline, Etihad. Etihad is City’s principal sponsor, its name adorning the team’s stadium, its signage during matches and even the front of the players’ jerseys.

"Circumventing" as far as i'm aware isn't a breach of the rules more a "finding a way around them" which is surely common business practice.
From Colins' piece he makes clear that from the original judgement that the Etihad deal was accepted as "Fair Value" with a promise the Aabar and Etisalat deals remained at current levels (2014). So how can we now face allegations of inflating those deals? None of the NYT article makes any sense in this case or am I reading this wrong?

 

[eastmanc]

We have a settlement with UEFA on the fair value of the sponsorship from related parties, so that is categorically not the issue. They can't or wont pursue us retrospectively on that.

I'm waiting to see what information emerges as City have said the emails are out of context, but Sheikh Mansour providing funds directly to us and disguising it as sponsorship from another source is a big no no, not just in the football world.

If it transpires that we weren't receiving the values we stated from our sponsors, then I think we would be bang to rights. However, we have (and had) smart people working for us, so even if the money did ultimately come from Sheikh Mansour, I would expect a paper trail that evidences the money went through the sponsors legitimately first, rather than directly to us. We were audited at the time, so I would hope we have that bit covered as it is fucking basic, but that would be the only thing I would be concerned by.

If we were able to tick in the amounts coming into our account from an Etihad (or Aabar, Etisalat etc) bank account, then I don't see much happening from this investigation - but again, I'll wait and see what information emerges before jumping to conclusions that the world is out to get us.

The accusations levelled at us - albeit on the basis of the hacked emails, warranted an investigation, and if the shoe was on the other foot, I would want any other club investigated for the same thing. It is perfectly conceivable that the contents of the emails are legitimate, and yet there still have been no actual wrongdoing.

If we've done nothing wrong we have nothing to worry about, as our response today suggests.

FFP was brought in by uefa to fuck City over, pure and simple. As big Sam said this morning on Talk shite the FFP rule is ridiculous. In any other business you would be praised for investing in your own company. This rule wasn’t brought in when Jack Walker was pilling money into Blackburn or when Abramovich took over Chelsea, no just when City were taken over.

 

[Machiavelli]

FFP was brought in by uefa to fuck City over, pure and simple. As big Sam said this morning on Talk shite the FFP rule is ridiculous. In any other business you would be praised for investing in your own company. This rule wasn’t brought in when Jack Walker was pilling money into Blackburn or when Abramovich took over Chelsea, no just when City were taken over.

Blackburn and Chelsea weren’t/aren’t owned by Muslims from the Middle East.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

If it wasn’t edited why would City have quoted something that didn’t exist? Are they just hoping nobody has a copy of the original article?

 

[doobyedoobye]

Christ imagine how embarrassing that is for Stu Brennan. He wrote an article about the NYT editing their piece without even checking if it was edited or not.

I don't get how he made such a basic mistake

 

[domalino]

If it wasn’t edited why would City have quoted something that didn’t exist? Are they just hoping nobody has a copy of the original article?

I think you're confused. The bit city quoted is in the article and always has been, despite rumours of it being edited out.

 

[lonestay]

Let's just press the nuclear lawyer button and nuke eufa out of existence.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

I think you're confused. The bit city quoted is in the article and always has been, despite rumours of it being edited out.

Oh ok, yes I am confused then :)

 

[kaz7]

Probaly because he is a no mark that we haven't even heard of