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

[hateutd]

Nope, it would be fine.

Spliff.... :)

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Maybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?

No idea PB. None of it makes sense, not least that we could have been so stupid (if the emails are a true reflection of affairs) when we didn’t need to be. Doesn’t sound a very plausible explanation though.

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

I tried that in the sixties. Kept going back to Maine Road and we kept getting whacked, then one day we won!

Thought that was an away game... at Rotherham!

 

[Marvin]

Why is it unlikely that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal? The hacked emails suggest he did exactly that and City have never denied their authenticity, merely their context. And having looked at them again yesterday I’m really struggling to see how they might have been taken out of context as claimed. They come from senior members of the City hierarchy and contain very precise instruction on the movement of money between ADUG and Etihad. If we’re going to take this ban down, then it seems (to my untrained eye) that it’ll have to be on one of the regulatory/technical/whatever you want to call them, grounds that Projectriver outlined in that 93:20 podcast he did

We've done this before but the emails say that ADUG route or wire Ethad finance to Manchester City. They do not say that ADUG underwrites the Etihad sponsorship.

"Etihad's direct contribution remains constant at 8m," wrote Simon Pearce in December 2013. At that time, Etihad's contractual sponsoring obligation was 35 million Pounds. The claim was money was "routed through the partners and they then forward onto us," 'please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG."

This is where context comes in. We know Etihad are in financial problems. Perhaps they were unable to fulfil the contract in full and relied on state support? These emails do not prove that Sheikh Mansour was supporting and financing Etihad's obligations although I can understand why someone would ask questions.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Is that something we should be concerned about PB ?

It shouldn't be. If we can show that ADUG wasn't the originator but the conduit then I'd hope we would be OK. Naturally UEFA would probably try to change the rules again no doubt.

 

[Marvin]

No idea PB. None of it makes sense, not least that we could have been so stupid (if the emails are a true reflection of affairs) when we didn’t need to be. Doesn’t sound a very plausible explanation though.

Etihad have already said that they were fully liable for the entire sponsorship. It's a statement that raises eyebrows but it'snot in my opinion damning. I find it very difficult to believe that the UAE state were not and are not responsible for underwriting the commercial obligations of their airline. I don't find it a surprise that the money gets routed through ADUG.

 

[Gordyola]

Maybe the sensitivity over the Open Skies case meant that the guys in Abu Dhabi didn't want people to know ADEC was actually funding it? If you wanted to keep that secret then you'd hardly broadcast it all round City. So ADUG's name was used to keep ADEC out of it. One of the few facts we do know is that ADEC were covering the Etihad sponsorship just a couple of years earlier. Why would that suddenly change?

Even if the money came to City via ADUG, perhaps that was the route ADEC decided to use after the revelation that it was funding the Etihad sponsorship. ADEC -> ADUG -> City.

This is what I believe to be the case since I saw the open skies document Ultimately if a trial of the money can be shown that originated from ADEC via ADUG then it’s fine

 

[SilverFox2]

Brother...

Who said go and see your brother .......

Thanks RB.

 

[Marvin]

This is what I believe to be the case since I saw the open skies document Ultimately if a trial of the money can be shown that originated from ADEC via ADUG then it’s fine

Even Conn accepted that the Etihad deal was state financed. However, we have the issue that the UEFA AC ruled against City. How? I don't see a case in the Der Spiegel emails. I see a case to answer but not a uncontestable case. Do they have something else?

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Even if the 2 year ban gets thrown out IMO it will have held up our buying of the top talent.