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

[slbsn]

Ok, cheers. I don’t want us to win on a technicality anyway and want the club to prove that they’re innocent of any wrongdoing.

Well beggars can't be choosers. We need to win by any means. An "exoneration" is very unlikely.

 

[petrusha]

Well put Marvin and squares with my thinking. We have to trust the club when they say they’ve done nothing wrong (until such a time as UEFA can categorically prove otherwise), and I find it difficult to see why so many prominent figures at the club would be risking their reputations in being so bullish about our innocence if we were guilty of wrongdoing. That said, as much as I’m trusting the club on this, like you I can see exactly why UEFA would want to ask City questions about the content of the e-mails.

The club was quite clearly pulling out all the stops to try to qualify to use the pre-2010 wages exemption which, even though we'd still have technically failed FFP, would have allowed us to avoid punishment for that failure. The reporting in the media has been universally hysterical and has almost never, as far as I can see, allowed for the possibility that an organisation can legitimately seek to find a way to circumvent rules according to which it has to operate. To my knowledge, only Keiran Maguire, the football finance guy from Liverpool University, has noted that several measures City employed are quite commonplace in the commercial world.

That said, in one or two aspects City did rather go beyond what was reasonable. Based on the Der Spiegel materials, PwC alleged that the values of the sponsorships with Etihad and Aabar were overvalued and, while I don't have the figures to hand, I do recall that the amounts involved made this conclusion seem perfectly reasonable. Now, I think it's reasonable to infer that City were able to persuade these sponsors to enter into contracts at inflated amounts only owing to the owner's connections in Abu Dhabi; an arm's length contract for a similar sponsorship wouldn't have contained those valuations. In the light of that, City were really taking the piss in asserting that the amounts couldn't be adjusted to a fair value because these sponsors weren't related parties.

So I can fully understand why UEFA were dubious about City and why they felt they had to investigate the Der Spiegel revelations. But reportedly the sanctions against City relate to the Etihad contract, which leaves me a bit nonplussed. After all, we know that City have performed obligations under the agreement (e.g. Etihad's logo has appeared on City's shirts through the period), even PwC accepted the valuation, and City's accounts show the money coming from Etihad. So I really have no idea on what grounds the IC and AC process concluded that the settlement agreement should be reopened. I keep thinking that there must be more information we're so far unaware of, because something just doesn't seem right somehow.

 

[mcfc1632]

Well beggars can't be choosers. We need to win by any means. An "exoneration" is very unlikely.

Yep - this is an occasion where a scrappy 1-0 win with a goal against the run of play will do just fine

 

[beverly hills]

Are we expecting a result at the end of the day or will this be something that goes into review by them for a few months?

I actually want to kill Ya.
If it’s not the puntastic knobs derailing, it’s the thread jcls.
You don’t even have to trawl the whole thread, just go back a couple of days.
Result by Xmas

 

[blueparrot]

Ok, cheers. I don’t want us to win on a technicality anyway and want the club to prove that they’re innocent of any wrongdoing.

I did , not really bothered now. If it upsets everyone else who cares.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

With that being the case, why did City argue against PwC’s suggestion that Etihad is a related party?

What did we stand to gain?

I'm not sure. We hadn't classed Etihad or any of the other sponsors as related parties prior to 2014 so maybe that was part of it. It could also have been that if we had, we would've had to write down the smaller ones, which might have impacted our ability to pass FFP in subsequent years. From what I can see though, we'd probably have been OK even if we did that.

In that case I'd have simply said "OK. For the purposes of FFP, and FFP only, we will class these companies, and any other Abu Dhabi ones, as related parties. Therefore if you agree that Etihad is fair value then that's OK but we'll look at the others and get our own view on valuation, rather than simply accept yours. Then we'll come to an agreement."

 

[willipp]

The fact there is no “UEFA “ leak is because it isn’t going at all well for them :)

Im not buying that for one second. They aren't in charge of this procedure so unlike the previously where they have held all the cards, they start to leak info now, especially with what city raised on the original process, they would effectively be screwing their own chances.

 

[Citizen Green]

Well beggars can't be choosers. We need to win by any means. An "exoneration" is very unlikely.

Hi mate, thanks for all your input on this thread it's been very informative.

What do you see being the most realistic outcome, CAS knocking it back to the AC to sort out a more suitable punishment in line with the breach or exoneration, which you state is very unlikely?

 

[slbsn]

Hi mate, thanks for all your input on this thread it's been very informative.

What do you see being the most realistic outcome, CAS knocking it back to the AC to sort out a more suitable punishment in line with the breach or exoneration, which you state is very unlikely?

Ill leave you to listen to the 9320pod out shortly where I am put on the spot on...I'll link it when its out.

 

[Citizen Green]

Im not buying that for one second. They aren't in charge of this procedure so unlike the previously where they have held all the cards, they start to leak info now, especially with what city raised on the original process, they would effectively be screwing their own chances.

One of the complaints from City which CAS actually took onboard first time around was the leaks to the NYT from UEFA, CAS called them "concerning" and advised the offender be removed from the process, so UEFA won't be leaking a thing as it could jeopardize them whether it be positive or negative from their stand point.