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

[blue b4 the moon]

This is sounding like it's heading to a full-on shit hitting the fan for a lot of people/teams & we'll be just a minor bit on the side.

 

[Centurions]

It is of concern to UEFA if they can show it's come directly from ADUG. But I doubt they can.

And context is hugely important as the email said ADUG would "arrange" the additional funding, not that they would provide it, which is an important difference.

But even if ADUG did provide the funds, and UEFA could prove that conclusively, they're still allowed to do that as long as it represents market value, and that's completely subjective.

And just for clarity, already passed as acceptable by UEFA.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

And just for clarity, already passed as acceptable by UEFA.

That was my understanding.

 

[Nails]

This is sounding like it's heading to a full-on shit hitting the fan for a lot of people/teams & we'll be just a minor bit on the side.

This is an ancient tweet from a conspiracy theorist nutter

 

[Indaparkside]

Fucking hell this has gone on longer than brexit

 

[BringBackSwales]

Fucking hell this has gone on longer than brexit

But not as long as fergi time

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

I am waiting till a couple of days before the Liverpool game, when someone will print something to make us look guilty. The club should be pressing UEFA, to either charge us or close the case. The longer this goes on, the more guilty we look in the eyes of those that want to sling mud at us. Afterall they can say, well it looks like UEFA have got a mountain of evidence to charge us and they are still looking at it. That's why we have not be charged yet. The club should start to bring the UEFA and their officials to court, and sue them for receiving stolen documents. As the theft happened in England UEFA cannot have the argument that they are bound by Swiss law because they are based there.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

This is an ancient tweet from a conspiracy theorist nutter

Yeah I know my thoughts still stand I should have perhaps worded it differently if we do get done it'll be a landslide following us..... hopefully.

 

[Rammy Blue]

I am waiting till a couple of days before the Liverpool game, when someone will print something to make us look guilty. The club should be pressing UEFA, to either charge us or close the case. The longer this goes on, the more guilty we look in the eyes of those that want to sling mud at us. Afterall they can say, well it looks like UEFA have got a mountain of evidence to charge us and they are still looking at it. That's why we have not be charged yet. The club should start to bring the UEFA and their officials to court, and sue them for receiving stolen documents. As the theft happened in England UEFA cannot have the argument that they are bound by Swiss law because they are based there.

You don’t half post some utter tripe.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

This is an ancient tweet from a conspiracy theorist nutter

You’ll upset a few with that view......

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

This is sounding like it's heading to a full-on shit hitting the fan for a lot of people/teams & we'll be just a minor bit on the side.

Tbh he wrote this about a year ago
Hence why Mourinho's utd was treated differently to Ole's by refs etc
Also pgmol seem to be working for a group of agents with links to owners of clubs who also own bookies

 

[rowarta]

Tbh he wrote this about a year ago
Hence why Mourinho's utd was treated differently to Ole's by refs etc
Also pgmol seem to be working for a group of agents with links to owners of clubs who also own bookies

Led by David Icke

 

[CharliesRightPeg]

This is an ancient tweet from a conspiracy theorist nutter

Who according to a well know poster has worked for City in the past obtaining information about refs manipulation of games ending in the removal of 3 refs from the UK listing back in 2011/12 if I remember right

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Fucking hell this has gone on longer than brexit

But the Dipper open-topped omnibus parade will beat all of 'em!

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

But the Dipper open-topped omnibus parade will never happen .

Amended for your approval .

 

[keith's curle]

Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:

But even if ADUG did provide the funds, and UEFA could prove that conclusively, they're still allowed to do that as long as it represents market value, and that's completely subjective.

I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...

 

[citizen_maine]

Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:



I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...

a related party is allowed to sponsor us, but that sponsorship falls liable to a 'fair value' test. As the amount of the sponsorship was deemed fair value, then it doesn't matter who paid it?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:



I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...

Sorry. I wasn't quite clear enough before.

Owners are allowed to inject money into clubs via sponsorships from what are deemed to be 'related parties' (companies they're connected to) but those sponsorships have to be what UEFA regard as market value. That is what they consider an unconnected party would pay. Any excess over market value isn't allowed to be declared as revenue for FFP purposes. We can keep the money but have to knock it off our declared revenue when we submit our FFP calculations.

So if Etihad give us £65m a year for the shirt, stadium and campus naming rights that's probably market value when compared to similar deals at equivalent clubs. If they gave us £150m a year, that probably wouldn't be However we have denied that Etihad is a related party, which I believe UEFA accepted. Therefore they could give us £150m and we could use the full amount under FFP. The problem is that the owner can't inject undeclared funds through a unrelated party.

The question is whether ADUG did themselves provide the additional funding to Etihad, to enable them to meet their commitment and, if so, whether UEFA could prove that. If ADUG were stupid enough to send a separate payment direct to City then they'd be bang to rights but I doubt that would have happened. If ADUG were providing the funds then they would have given them to Etihad first. But the other question is whether ADUG did provide the funds or arrange for someone else to do so. My understanding is that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council themselves provided the Etihad sponsorship money. They admitted this a few years ago as part of a submission when they were fighting an 'Open Skies' complaint from the US over state support for airlines in the Gulf.

Sheikh Mansour doesn't sit on the ADEC but Khaldoon does so there's a link and a possible reason to declare that the ADEC is a related party. But then we're still in the clear as long as the sponsorship is considered to be market value. For me, the easiest way out of this is to accept that Etihad is a related party. Then UEFA have nothing on us.

 

[squirtyflower]

This is a very interesting development today.

It has emerged during the Ronaldo rape allegations case that Nevada State prosecutors, following investigation into 100 pages and emails, dropped the case because detectives could not be sure the documents published by Football Leaks were not altered.

Ronaldo is represented by Jorge Mendes' Gesfute agency.

The whole sordid affair is an attempt to discredit Gestifute, arranged and paid for by the criminal element of the four ‘super’ agencies created in England. These same agents are linked to the betting scams by PGMOL and players of the agents. The ‘war’ is deeper than many realise.

 

[squirtyflower]

This is an ancient tweet from a conspiracy theorist nutter

Yes the conspiracy nutter hired by Manchester City Football Club in 2010 that eventually led to the removal of certain refs from our games and refs suddenly leaving the profession in 2012.