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

[cityzen81]

[/QUOTE] I keep thinking that there must be more information we're so far unaware of, because something just doesn't seem right somehow.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what has me worried.

This is the most high profile FFP case ever and in fact it could be argued FFP is at risk altogether if City win

I agree the IC are as much bent as they are incompetent but the AC is full of some of the best lawyers and judges in the world.

They must has realised they would be under immense scrutiny here with their reputations hanging in the balance? For them to go nuclear on City has me worried there is more to this than meets the eye.

 

[KS55]

Examples?

A friend told me

 

[meltonblue]

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.

Do we know our accounts show the money coming from Etihad? To me, that’s one of the key bits in all of this.

 

[KS55]

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?

At the time they would not have been fair value, if related, according to PwC. If unrelated, they could be any amount the sponsor chose. But now, they would be fair value and Mansour could fund. So Uefa now claim they are not related which bars Mansour from funding.
No politics there, then.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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

That was well worth reading again. If nothing else, it clearly states in UEFA's own rule book they can/have/do remain involved in the process when it has already been kicked up to the IC.

Funny that the former IC chairman was also chairman at Celtic for a time - how the hell can people with historical ties to football clubs be appointed to such roles in the first place?

We see it with Gill, Parry, Platini...

 

[Ballet-on-ice]

that makes interesting reading everything we do is aggressive is anyone not aggressive when they are being told what they can do in there own business and face loosing millions and there lawyers are saying the other side is completely wrong ? Do we know in what way our side disagreed with PWC I think I am right in saying our auditors did not consider any of our deals related party PWC considered 3 of 4 related guessing Etisalate Aabar Visit Abu Dhabi and Etihad did we not have a sponsorship deal with Mubala excuse the spelling mistakes then we agreed to have 2 treated as related party or at least not increased guessing Etisalte and Aabar but not ETihad or visit Abu Dhabi I would like to know how our auditors reach a very different conclusions PWC the term related party has been explained on here before and it’s very factual feels like one set of auditors or perhaps both are being swayed by there clients money wonder what CAS make of this but perhaps it is for a different court to look at

Jesus! Full stops.

 

[petrusha]

Do we know our accounts show the money coming from Etihad? To me, that’s one of the key bits in all of this.

City have maintained that Etihad funded the sponsorship in full and that our accounts are absolutely accurate. I suppose one could quibble about the semantics around my use of the word 'know' but if City are telling the truth then the accounts will show the money coming from Etihad.

 

[blue oli]

All the talk of market value of sponsorship is a strange one for me. I’m not sure how the IC or AC would judge CFG sponsorship agreements that are spread across so many continents and clubs - there is no current market value view of this as it hasn’t been done before.

All of the sponsors from 2012/13 onwards would have been shown our 5 and 10 year plans and factored the future value into their decision making process.

Anything is only worth what someone would pay for it. The analogy I use with mates is a signed city shirt from last year I have hanging up on my wall. It was a gift from the players but I would have paid £1000 at least for it, yet my best mate who is a West Ham fan would pay anything g over £50 for it, so what’s the market value ? What someone else says or what the top payer in the market is prepared to pay ?

All positioning and politically motivated so I’m really interested to see what happens here as it really does impact on football as an industry and the anti competitive behaviour of certain clubs and the regulator - all acting as a cartel.

 

[meltonblue]

City have maintained that Etihad funded the sponsorship in full and that our accounts are absolutely accurate. I suppose one could quibble about the semantics around my use of the word 'know' but if City are telling the truth then the accounts will show the money coming from Etihad.

Yep. That raises the question why we didn’t show proof of the bank transfer straight away though, given that would be irrefutable proof. I have a feeling we think that having Etihad say they have sole liability is proof enough and UEFA not agreeing based on the emails.

 

[ancoats]

What are you on about?

hahaha i don't know

the case is in its finishing stages and winding down today. the wait for a verdict may take sometime to release ? the CAS may offer a deal between both parties. or like said on the thread city will want a clear our name in wrong doing. so no offer will be taken by city

there is a meeting set by uefa on the 17th of june and its for sorting out the champions league and new 8 team mini tournament and final and venue
but i can see uefa adding a update on the court case and maybe they will know something before city ??