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

[WRicko]

I am concerned that CAS cannot fully deal with our case.

I am not sure how we can set out our case in full without going against FFP. Part of our problem with FFP is that its unfairness in terms of timing constant changes in rules and how it deals with debt. Yet we wont want to do this one because in theory FFP helps us stop say Newcastle etc. Two agreed to it in the sense that we accepted in so far as we signed up to agree with it in order to play in the Champions league. It would look bad to go after FFP now. It might also be our weakest argument I hear judges do not like people who make lots of weak arguments even if valid they would rather deal with a few strong arguments. CAS is not the place to do this anyway it would be the ECJ or the Swiss Courts.

I doubt we can open up the original settlement which might have been useful as away to argue that whilst we maintain we have not done what is alleged even if we had it would not have mattered because we should have had some exemptions but UEFA changed the rules. I am especially sure this is not the case if we are also arguing that the original settlement time bars these current allegations.

I am sure that CAS can deal with related parties fair values etc but I would feel more comfortable if this was being dealt with in a proper court

How much will the outcome be affected by the fact they are an arbitration services rather than a court ?

Even if we have a strong case it a massive ask to get off completely especially if it was on technical grounds and how would this go down in the media ? How much would this affect our brand ? Would we not be more likely to get off completely and on less technical grounds in another setting ?

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas

MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

I'd be interested to hear what Projectriver, Petrusha and PB make of that piece.

 

[old blue]

Thanks to projectriver and PB yet again for answers to my earlier post. They have been most instructive and my confidence has certainly been reinforced by your contributions, projectriver. I have known your thoughts on FFP and debt for a long time now, PB, and I share them, though without any of your accounting expertise. They do form part of the bee I have in my bonnet about FFP and its status in law.

The law has to pay due regard to the intentions of the law makers and this is often not simple, but in the case of laws relating to business it is: investment is good, preventing it bad. FFP is NOT law but rules introduced by a sport governing body and the courts may need to consider what the real intentions of that body were when it introduced FFP. There is a clear temporal connection between the introduction of FFP and Abramovitch's regime at Chelsea and Sheikh Mansour's purchase of City. There is also the influence exerted on the form FFP took by those from certain clubs which were already banging the drun to put forward the idea that owner investment was actually "ruining football" for those clubs which "spent their own money". Platini switched his attention from the problem of debt to the question of spending and tried to convince every body that the consequences for football of limiting spending but also investment would be wholly beneficial. UEFA has only recently toned down the volume of its drum. It still claims that football is in a better financial state than in 2009, but this is hotly disputed and the liabilities of some clubs are far worse than they were. When we look at the liabilities of "elite" clubs we note a marked deterioration in their position. FFP has not reduced debt, certainly at those clubs which were influential in the direction it took. I think it would be wrong to outlaw debt and it would be unlawful (even leveraged buy outs in the UK) but the obvious weakness is that it does little if anything to discourage debt but it does absolutely nothing to ensure tat clubs ever pay the debt off. They have to pay the interest, but this is only similar to having to pay your bills. As you point out, PB, it is not genuinely concerned with the financial stability of clubs and I think a line of attack, in addition to the limits on investment, would be that it does nothing to achieve its main aim but actually puts obstacles in the way of clubs of which the financial stability is not in doubt at all.

Anyway, thank you both for your replies. My posts may belie the claim, but I feel I am rather the wiser for your assistance.

Methinks you should not underestimate your self. You seem to have a good grasp on the situation.

 

[blueyorkie]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas

MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

I'm sure if he hasn't done so already Stefan will advise you that UEFA's own regulations state that the limitation period commences from the date of the alleged breach not the date of the settlement.

 

[John Wayne]

Quite a detailed piece on this website and that time-barred aspect is "misjudged"...

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/mcfc-uefa-ffp-and-the-cas

MCFC’s reliance upon the five-year limitation period and the ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement appears misjudged. The May 2014 Settlement Agreement expressly states that the same ‘will be subject to on-going and in depth monitoring, in accordance with the applicable rules’ and that if MCFC ‘fails to comply with any of the terms of [the May 2014 Settlement Agreement], the… CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the [AC], as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) [of the PRCFCB]’. The mere opening of proceedings is sufficient to stop time from running.[11] The Investigation commenced in March 2019, fewer than five years after the May 2014 Settlement Agreement. Further, if the CLFFPR violation allegations against MCFC are proven – as the AC Decision indicates they are – then MCFC was never entitled to a ‘release’ from the May 2014 Settlement Agreement and the CFCB was entitled to commence the Investigation/make the Referral Decision against MCFC.[12] This encapsulates a basic legal principle that no one shall benefit from their own wrongdoing.

Surely the key in all of this is the belief that the allegations against us predate the May 2014 settlement. The supposed evidence predates the settlement. We cannot be judged on failing to comply with a settlement before that settlement has been agreed. Where this all changes is if UEFA do have evidence post-settlement of disguised owner investment but that website cannot possibly know that this is the case. All "evidence" in the public domain is what was in Der Spiegel, thus predating the settlement. Unless I am misreading the situation, that website surely fails to understand that we can't have breached a settlement that never existed.

 

[Impeccable One]

To add to Stefan's reply to you, if we receive money from a sponsorship contract, that's revenue so goes into the Profit and Loss Account. We've received money (income) in consideration of an agreement to provide something, which in this case is publicity/advertising. In accounting terms, you debit the bank account (which is a balance sheet item) and credit the commercial revenue account (a P&L account item) with the cash received.

If we receive money from a loan, that's a balance sheet transaction. We've received an asset (cash) in return for accepting a liability to the lender. So in accounting terms we debit cash again but this time we credit a loan account. Both of these are on the balance sheet so the money received doesn't go into the P&L account (although any interest we pay will).

That, to me, shows the weakness of FFP as it stands. At the end of the day it's cash in the bank which you can spend the cash on players however it comes in, via a loan, sponsorship or the sale of a player. Obviously, if it's from the latter two, it's money that's been "earned" - money in, money out - whereas if that's a loan, it's not "earned" money and you've increased your liabilities. But FFP doesn't look at liabilities, just income and expenses. What UEFA should be doing is asking the likes of Chelsea and United how they would repay the debts they have (Chelsea's £1.4bn debt to Abramovich and United's now £650m debt to their lenders) if they needed to.

FFP, if it was seriously concerned with the fininacial sustainability of clubs, should be insisting that any debt is repayable over a given period, say 10 years for debt like United's or Chelsea's and maybe 20-25 years for infrastructure-related debt. Or else the notional repayment figure that would be required to settle that debt should be added to allowable FFP expenses. So if a club's notional debt repayment schedule under current interest rates would involve paying back £50m a year for a number of years, that £50m should be added to expenses for FFP purposes so the club can't spend that. That, to me, would level the playing field for clubs that don't have huge debts.

You really are great at explaimg stuff for non-accountants like me.

Re loans & FFP, does it not seem like UEFA are saying 'if someone is willing to lend it, they must have done due diligence that it can be repaid or assets resold to recoup the loan.' Hence UEFA don't care about increasing debt as a result of loans received ?

 

[Marvin]

UEFA's case on the emails appears to be the nonsense concept that Etihad were only obligated for £8m of the £67.5m in the stated deal.

From Conn 14 Feb 2020: "The “leaked” emails and documents appeared to show that City’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, was mostly funding the huge, £67.5m annual sponsorship of the City shirt, stadium and academy by his country’s airline, Etihad. One of the leaked emails suggested that only £8m of that sponsorship in 2015-16 was funded directly by Etihad and the rest was coming from Mansour’s own company vehicle for the ownership of City, the Abu Dhabi United Group."

Does anyone expect that Manchester City would ever have allowed Etihad to put their name all over our stadium and shirt for £8m pa?

The emails suggest funding came through ADUG but Etihad had a commercial undertaking to sponsor City to the tune of at least £40m pa according to contemporaneous media reports. Evidence of disguised owner investment appears to City fans to be superficial.

 

[91:23]

the whole of uefa and its ****s of the so called elite teams can fuck off for me and its why the whole of football is so much in debt. its all built on sand and on the drip and the never never ? not one of the so called giants of the game are debt free and being run proper

but somebody comes along that offers to buy manchester city and put millions sorry BILLIONS into the game and builds a debt free profit making club and then gets slammed and gets kicked out of the system for being to rich ?? the thing that really get my goats up is the selling clubs that add 10 to 20 million knowing city will pay it. BUT NOT ONE OF THEM WILL BACK US in saying without city money they would have been fucked

manchester city money investment in football has kept many clubs going for years, its money that not been loan on assets and a gamble on the future and added to the clubs debt ? and now you see 2 of the so called biggest club in the world asking for help from the government and wanting £200 million. for what ?? am i missing something here ? why does a clubs like barcelona and madrid have to go cap in hand to pay players wages

you know what fuck uefa.just fuck off with the FFP rules you hide behind. YOU FUCKING HATE MANCHESTER CITY BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT A FAIR FIGHT. the so called members of the broad or what you call friends of uefa are full of shit. they have been bent for years and somebody comes along and puts up a challenge and you pull rank ? it just show what you are and who really runs the game and told by the so called elite to jump

Ancoats. Couldn't agree more. Burnley saying they will run out of money in August just proves how clubs spend before they receive. They gamble on the future and it's not just Burnley too. And as for the history clubs who essentially are the same as the rest, their concern is that well managed City will take some of the pie, and without the whole pie, they will all go tits.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

You really are great at explaimg stuff for non-accountants like me.

Re loans & FFP, does it not seem like UEFA are saying 'if someone is willing to lend it, they must have done due diligence that it can be repaid or assets resold to recoup the loan.' Hence UEFA don't care about increasing debt as a result of loans received ?

it's basically the people who wanted the rules are reliant on them so need them excluded. Whilst assets may be secured against those loans, as you'd imagine with those sums, it's all the other creditors on the balance sheet who lose out if it goes tits up.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Ancoats. Couldn't agree more. Burnley saying they will run out of money in August just proves how clubs spend before they receive. They gamble on the future and it's not just Burnley too. And as for the history clubs who essentially are the same as the rest, their concern is that well managed City will take some of the pie, and without the whole pie, they will all go tits.

even City have arrangements where they take payment from the bank secured against future prize money and TV income, it's part of business especially when your revenue streams and timings aren't constant.