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

[Marvin]

No what I'm trying to say is Eithad pleading the poor man who need government assistance on one hand and front loading unnecessary payments on the other is a bad look. The front loading part may have been someone speculating (PB I think).

Etihad aren't pleading anything. Everyone knows that Etihad have been struggling financially for years.

The terms of the etihad deal have never been made public. It's possible that UEFA think we've been fiddling the Etihad deal so that at one time it said X was due, and now they have strong suggestion that Y was paid but we're getting into the realm of guesswork here, and we can prove nothing.

I do think that the Etihad deal must be at the heart of the UEFA case as it's the only substantial UAE sponsorship deal but I don't find the email trail damning in of itself. UEFA may have other evidence. I think they must unless the UEFA AC hearing was a complete farce.

 

[Centurions]

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

Perhaps the very next email was 'apologies, I meant ADEC, not ADUG'.

That's the problem with looking at one email out of possibly hundreds. City may not have denied their authenticity, but they never confirmed them either. They just rightly refused to comment on them.

 

[waspish]

Perhaps the very next email was 'apologies, I meant ADEC, not ADUG'.

That's the problem with looking at one email out of possibly hundreds. City may not have denied their authenticity, but they never confirmed them either. They just rightly refused to comment on them.

Yep that auto correct is a bummer.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks you saved me the tedious effect of replying.

And thank you for therefore saving us the tedious effort of having to read it.

 

[slbsn]

Always remember "From the very beginning, UEFA's investigators ... were skeptical of clubs whose sponsoring revenues came almost exclusively from state-owned companies that were under the control of club owners."

Worth a re-read now...
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-and-psg-pact-with-the-sheikhs-a-1236414.html
https://t.co/qfZs4DGPoY?amp=1

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I know this has been done to death but if the sponsor is a related party then can you just pay yourself as long as it’s deemed fair value?

Yes.

 

[KS55]

It was claimed earlier in the thread that Etihad may have front loaded payments to suit City's cash flow requirements and it was stated it would make no difference at what stage the money was paid once it was the right amount within the contract period. That isn't really compatible with a struggling business that needs propping up by the state. Bringing forward financial obligations wouldn't be considered normal, especially to an unrelated party.

Etihad at the time was not a normal business. They lost millions in unwise acquisitions and could not meet any of their obligations without huge gov support. An insolvent sponsor may be why that email conversation took place. Embarrassing, but not damning.

 

[BillCarlisle]

I think that amidst all the complications of this issue it's basically quite simple.
Unless UEFA can provide solid evidence that a ban is justified then CAS will have little option but to rule in our favour. If they do come up with said evidence of serious wrongdoing then we're in the shit.
Hopefully what Khaldoon & Sorriano have been telling us all along hasn't been a huge smokescreen.

 

[Citizen Green]

Der Speigel

“Tradition-rich clubs that didn't want to sell no longer stood much of a chance against the nouveau riche and their financial doping.”

Jesus Christ

 

[M18CTID]

No what I'm trying to say is Eithad pleading the poor man who need government assistance on one hand and front loading unnecessary payments on the other is a bad look. The front loading part may have been someone speculating (PB I think).

A bad look for Etihad, maybe, but not a bad look for City. And frankly, I think all of us on here are only really arsed about City clearing their name. If they can prove there’s no wrongdoing and win the appeal that’s all that matters to us in all this. Beyond that, I don’t think any of us give much of a shit about Etihad’s finances!