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

[tolmie's hairdoo]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

We have been able to clearly show the flow of money at CAS. The question now is purely if it can be proved otherwise.

It's one of the significant major hurdles which has existed for UEFA all along.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I don’t want to sound like the idiot fans of other clubs who say we have cooked the books or are committing money laundering. But how can CAS punish us without a criminal investigation ? I know it’s was suggested that there is no public interest (rival clubs would disagree) and if we have done what’s alleged we have actually given the tax man more money not less but we have non the less fiddled the books. The fact this case is major news but nothing is happening in the criminal sense surely makes it likely we will win at CAS. Can it even be a sort of defense ? Am I missing something ? Heck the press who have gone after us haven’t even suggested we are criminals perhaps they to know we haven’t done anything wrong

Best way to not sound like an idiot is to not sound like an idiot.

 

[domalino]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

The thing is, FFP is not tax law.

There might be a UEFA rule about inflating sponsorships, but the tax man doesn't care that the Aabar sponsorship went up £1m this year for no reason, as long as it's accounted for properly.

And submissions to UEFA for FFP review are not legal documents where lying on them is a crime. So even if we did falsify them, that's not a crime either.

 

[City & Blue Brazil]

The thing is, FFP is not tax law.

There might be a UEFA rule about inflating sponsorships, but the tax man doesn't care that the Aabar sponsorship went up £1m this year for no reason, as long as it's accounted for properly.

Our losses brought forward for tax purposes will be so large that the taxman will be very uninterested in any profits disclosed in the accounts for many years to come. On the other hand the taxman is always interested in payments to players and agents for obvious reasons.

 

[Akpowell]

He is 100% making a point of this. I'm not one to look for messages, but no way would he be focusing on this so much if the CAS thing wasn't ongoing, he'd be saying finish second, finish as high in the table, get maximum points etc etc. he is using the words Champions League deliberately, imho.

Why do you think he's doing it on purpose

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

We have been able to clearly show the flow of money at CAS. The question now is purely if it can be proved otherwise.

It's one of the significant major hurdles which has existed for UEFA all along.

This is the central issue of the whole matter. Presumably City have shown documentary evidence to the court that there has been no modification of contracts, no inflation of sponsorship deals and that the source of the cash coming into the club is exactly what the club and its accounts claim and demonstrate. We don't know what has been presented to CAS but I assume its what I reckon, but do you know this, tolmie? If you do, then there is now way the DS emails are in context or of any real relevance. UEFA cannot prove that our accounts are anything but a full and true representation.

As for emails, I would make the point that in 2014 the club has emails that show that it actually worked closely with UEFA (cooperated?!) to avoid falling foul of the regulations and to avoid being sanctioned, and after assuring the club that it was on course to avoid any sanction UEFA changed the relevant dates to ensure City failed and copped some very serious sanctions. This seems an object lesson in the price of cooperation, which was reinforced when City saw the IC in action and could evaluate the integrity of its chairman and chief investigator. Even so a charge of non-cooperation is hard to sustain in the face of a dossier of some hundred documents. If City's appeal is upheld it is plainly ludicrous to say that a one year ban and/or fine is justified because, although City didn't do any of the things UEFA claim they did, they must be banned because they didn't help prove they did!

 

[SilverFox2]

The thing is, FFP is not tax law.

There might be a UEFA rule about inflating sponsorships, but the tax man doesn't care that the Aabar sponsorship went up £1m this year for no reason, as long as it's accounted for properly.

And submissions to UEFA for FFP review are not legal documents where lying on them is a crime. So even if we did falsify them, that's not a crime either.

Anyone got an opinion on whether "spirit of the rule" is mandatory?

In other words can the terminology of a UEFA rule be taken literally or is it simply a shorthand to include whatever UEFA want.?

 

[OB1]

They say you are only as young as the person you feel - so that makes me 42 thanks to the wife!!!

Hmmmm, my wife is only 18 months younger than me.

 

[slbsn]

We could do with a flow chart - If this happens >>then this will happen or this will happen.
I'll leave that with you and check back for your resulting chart later ;-)

If only there were some articles and a couple of podcasts on this topic...https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

 

[OB1]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

Good grief, you don't half find some dangerous talk on social media.

This isn't about falsifying accounts. Etihad are our sponsors and I am not aware that anyone in "authority" has suggested or shown that they have not accounted for their sponsorship of City. The problem is that UEFA have seen stolen documents that suggest Etihad received money from elsewhere that covered that expense and UEFA have deemed that elsewhere to be a party related to City. City have we hope demonstrated beyond doubt that the money was not provided to Etihad by a related party.