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

[slbsn]

So this is a case where UEFA claimed a club had failed to disclose matters that made the audited accounts false. I have always considered this was in essence UEFA's case on City but found it hard to believe a CAS tribunal would be prepared to make such a serious finding.

What is interesting is that UEFA dodged the question re A47 - saying "In the case at hand, given the conclusion reached with regard to Article 50 of the CL&FFP Regulations, the Panel considers that the question whether the Appellant has breached Article 47 CL&FFP may remain undecided. The mere existence of overdue payables is indeed sufficient to declare the Appellant ineligible to the UEFA 2013/2014 Europa League."

Obviously all cases turn on the individual facts but interesting nonetheless for the geeky readers of this thread. [GULP]

Triggered by a good reply on Twitter I relooked at the conclusion of this CAS case. I had thought that the Panel had waived the point through on the audit - in fact it looks like they found a way to dodge the question - I have amended the original post - this is the key section.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

This is an interesting and well researched and referenced document. You can see lots of City around p73. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=njilb

What is interesting is the pre-2014 knowledge. Similarly, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...h-creative-plays-documents-show-idUKKCN1NB2S7 looks at the pre-settlement conclusions of UEFA, in particular, "UEFA investigators, in the May 2014 preliminary view report, also noted that they had found no evidence of a commercial negotiation over the deals, “leading to the conclusion that this was not an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties.”

I've only skimmed the first document but in addition to the other replies the author has a specific bugbear about City re the spirit of the rules and the related party definition.

He has missed that UEFA are using IA24 and recommends a SEC alternative instead which would in his opinion catch City/Etihad as related parties.

He also has missed that the Etihad deal was not too far away from the Octagon valuation for PWC and broadly FMV.

Additionaly, he is oblivious to the UEFA rule change in summer 2015 re owners injecting money into their club. Bearing in mind the document was written in 2018 that is a big fail IMO. The key part of the rule change impacting City from 15/16 (assuming all Abu Dhabi sponsors are not treated as related in the accounts) are as follows: "Under the impacted regulations any entity that alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government represent more than 30% of the clubs total revenues is automatically considered a related party"

He can go to hell with the "spirit of the rules" crap - it us up to the rulemaker to change the rules if there is a weakness. And in any case UEFA have adjusted the rules to put a potential cap on Abu Dhabi sponsorships.

As an aside, in Mediapart's coverage of the leaks, they mention UEFA wrote to City in September 2015 reminding them of the new 30% rule .

 

[horlock_was_super]

Where do sarcasm and repetitive sarcasm rank?

Somewhere in between, perhaps? Mezzanine?

 

[KS55]

Yes but then CAS would sue us and I’d probably sue @Prestwich_Blue and @tolmie's hairdoo for good measure

@Prestwich_Blue would be the best target. After all, according to one of the twitterati, he is 'mad'. I forget which arse said that.

 

[KS55]

No, but you yourself have said you don’t think further legal action from City would be successful anyway, and presumably UEFA’s lawyers would be singing from the same hymn sheet, and quite honestly do any of those plus points measure up when set alongside appeasing the cartel and averting the possibility of a breakaway super league?
I think the appointment of the new rag/dipper approved PL CEO, the announcement of the CL revamp with a qualifying period designed to exclude us, and the 2 year ban, are all component parts of the same game, which is to destroy us totally and utterly as a threat, not just in the short term, but permanently, and I don’t think obtaining justification for the actions of the IC and the AC, or taking a scalp, will be significant motivators for UEFA at all. Their prime motivator is doing what the cartel want and being allowed to continue to wield nominal authority over the European game as a result

They will never destroy us. HH (!)and Khaldoon won't give up.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It was such a brilliant, insightful post.

Stop nicking my material.

 

[KS55]

Triggered by a good reply on Twitter I relooked at the conclusion of this CAS case. I had thought that the Panel had waived the point through on the audit - in fact it looks like they found a way to dodge the question - I have amended the original post - this is the key section.

That dodging of the question augurs well for us, backs up your earlier belief that CAS would be reluctant to make such a serious allegation inherent in their decision.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

This is an interesting and well researched and referenced document. You can see lots of City around p73. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=njilb

What is interesting is the pre-2014 knowledge. Similarly, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...h-creative-plays-documents-show-idUKKCN1NB2S7 looks at the pre-settlement conclusions of UEFA, in particular, "UEFA investigators, in the May 2014 preliminary view report, also noted that they had found no evidence of a commercial negotiation over the deals, “leading to the conclusion that this was not an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties.”

I found this quote on p.75.

“While UEFA eventually sanctioned Manchester City for failing the break- even analysis,170 UEFA found the sponsorship deal with Etihad to not be a related party transaction, therefore, the value did not necessitate scrutiny.”

I had thought the matter of whether Etihad was a related party had been left unresolved due to the settlement? If the quote above is accurate, where does that then leave us?

 

[SilverFox2]

I've only skimmed the first document but in addition to the other replies the author has a specific bugbear about City re the spirit of the rules and the related party definition.

He has missed that UEFA are using IA24 and recommends a SEC alternative instead which would in his opinion catch City/Etihad as related parties.

He also has missed that the Etihad deal was not too far away from the Octagon valuation for PWC and broadly FMV.

Additionaly, he is oblivious to the UEFA rule change in summer 2015 re owners injecting money into their club. Bearing in mind the document was written in 2018 that is a big fail IMO. The key part of the rule change impacting City from 15/16 (assuming all Abu Dhabi sponsors are not treated as related in the accounts) are as follows: "Under the impacted regulations any entity that alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government represent more than 30% of the clubs total revenues is automatically considered a related party"

He can go to hell with the "spirit of the rules" crap - it us up to the rulemaker to change the rules if there is a weakness. And in any case UEFA have adjusted the rules to put a potential cap on Abu Dhabi sponsorships.

As an aside, in Mediapart's coverage of the leaks, they mention UEFA wrote to City in September 2015 reminding them of the new 30% rule .

Good post, thanks for your views.
I identify with the "spirit of the rules" comment and in fact would include why their version of FFP was brought in if the "spirit of competitive football" is to be observed.

 

[slbsn]

I found this quote on p.75.

“While UEFA eventually sanctioned Manchester City for failing the break- even analysis,170 UEFA found the sponsorship deal with Etihad to not be a related party transaction, therefore, the value did not necessitate scrutiny.”

I had thought the matter of whether Etihad was a related party had been left unresolved due to the settlement? If the quote above is accurate, where does that then leave us?

I think its wrong - he's relying on Swiss Ramble. Conn's well briefed article on 22 Jan 2020 said it was considered related but as we settled it was a moot point. But we don't know for sure.