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

[slbsn]

No , but if Etihad pay 8m and Abu Dhabi pay the rest in any name or form we have.

As often happens in this debate, the legal obligation gets confused with the cashflow. There is nothing wrong or creative in a parent company settling the obligation of a subsidiary - happens frequently. Can create inter company balances or loans around a group. There may be specific related party rules either under the relevant accounting rules or under FFP but it doesn't (without good foundation) override the legal contract. If related under FFP, UEFA look at fair value of the contract - it still doesn't change the actual contract rather it adjusts the amount that is entered into the calculation. So if there is a legal contract between MCFC and Etihad for E to pay £50m a year, they pay us £50m and the cash arrives from 2 payments - one of £8m and one of £42m, and we record it as £50m a year coming from Etihad that is neither creative or wrong. If on the other hand the contract says its £8m pa but we record £50m, that is, of course a different matter.

 

[slbsn]

They do and I have no problem that they do either, but from an accounts point of view, and especially FFP is looks very dodgy.

FFP in my opinion is restriction of trade, stopping investment in business should never be allowed, BUT, we signed up for it.

It's the tone of the email extracts that make it appear "dodgy" and not the settlement of the legal obligation itself.

But Etihad have stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”“Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”

 

[nmc]

It's the tone of the email extracts that make it appear "dodgy" and not the settlement of the legal obligation itself.

But Etihad have stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”“Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”

The quote re Etihad is unequivocal and is backed up by audited accounts - so how can UEFA -with senior judges on the AC - find us guilty ? Something doesn’t fit.

 

[Keeper!]

It's the tone of the email extracts that make it appear "dodgy" and not the settlement of the legal obligation itself.

But Etihad have stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”“Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”

Well let's hope that is the irrefutable evidence, if it is we should have no worries.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Yep, somebody will crack before the official announcement.

I honestly think it will become clearer in the next few days as there is no way they will be able to contain themselves if the decision has gone against us in any way, or they will do as Rob Harris did the other day and start to put forward how if we are cleared that we have somehow circumnavigated the rules and ‘got away it’, hoping to see more of the latter by Wednesday/Thursday.

Don’t suppose anyone has Khaldoon’s email address, we could just send him a cheeky email and ask ;)

P.s. Obviously liverpool employees will have our chairman’s email and associated emails, but only want City fans replying.

bigbossman@cityfootballgroup.com

 

[Keeper!]

The quote re Etihad is unequivocal and is backed up by audited accounts - so how can UEFA -with senior judges on the AC - find us guilty ? Something doesn’t fit.

Emails? they were the reason this was reopened.

 

[Keeper!]

bigbossman@cityfootballgroup.com

It's changed, it's now thecoolmotherfucker@city

 

[ricky77]

bigbossman@cityfootballgroup.com

Any more news mate ? I’ve took this week off work and I can’t even relax for one minute lol

 

[Centurions]

The quote re Etihad is unequivocal and is backed up by audited accounts - so how can UEFA -with senior judges on the AC - find us guilty ? Something doesn’t fit.

That's why we're heading for 4,000 pages in this thread, UEFA have stated that they've accused us of misleading them and of lack of cooperation. The trouble is we don't know what we're supposed to have mislead them about. I'd hazard a guess that the lack of cooperation is that we refused to discuss the hacked emails, although that is only my guess.

 

[KS55]

But did they? Did City's evidence get a hearing there? The IC and the AC are two cheeks of the same arse as far as I can make out.

Good question. If answer is no, then it looks good for us.