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

[Bluemeanster]

The consenus of opinion is that Rick Parry has been the source of the UEFA leaks to the press in New York.
However Petros Mavroidis (Greece) has an office in New York and is listed by Uefa as serving in the Investigatory Chamber . He is a Greek national,and was recently quoted in the telegraph as telling CNN, that no final decision had been made in regard to City. Could this guy be UEFA's weak link and not Parry ???

 

[Machiavelli]

The consenus of opinion is that Rick Parry has been the source of the UEFA leaks to the press in New York.
However Petros Mavroidis (Greece) has an office in New York and is listed by Uefa as serving in the Investigatory Chamber . He is a Greek national,and was recently quoted in the telegraph as telling CNN, that no final decision had been made in regard to City. Could this guy be UEFA's weak link and not Parry ???

I hope he chokes on his next stifado.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I hope he chokes on his next stifado.

Kenny Everett likes this post.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thinking about it this Petros Mavroidis geezer could well be in the hallouminati.

 

[Parisian]

Is that correct or is it another example of a journo making what he wants to out of it?

The language changed from most journos from "inflated sponsorship" to a charge of misleading UEFA(by not disclosing related income) just before UEFAs leaks started.

The two are not the same. Firstly I thought it was common knowledge City passed the fair market value test on what they were getting years ago... it's not as if they could bung extra income on the balance sheet, there wouldn't need to be an investigation to see that I'd have thought. Secondly Etihad are not a related party to begin with, that's where I thought the misleading charge comes in, if a related party has been paying Etihad(which City say is not the case) then that would break the rules but it's not "inflating the value" the amount that was paid is not the issue but where it came from.

Does anyone know how the fair market value is calculated? Does it have anything to do with what they think a sponsor can afford or is it all to do with what City are worth in the market?

By following PSG case, they don't even know how to calculate fair market value in a reliable way.

What they did is they asked an auditing company to review the sponsorship and assess a value. PSG had the right to pick another auditing company from the ones validated by UEFA to assess the value.

The company paid by UEFA to sanction us said it is worth 30 M. The company paid by PSG not to be sanctioned said it is worth 70 M. Both with their very reliable tools and standards procedures. After deliberation, they decided to pick the 50 M€ value with a split result of 4 versus 3.

Their fair value market is bullshit. Look, just recently, Audi which is a stakeholder of Bayern Munich will pay 1 billion € over 12 years ( 60 M€ + bonus per year). But Audi is not considered as a related party. Does it mean that City and PSG can justify a contract around that value (or a bit lower) for the same kind of prestation ?

Usually, they say that fair value market is what City would get if the sponsor was not related. Example, you show that Air France would be happy to pay 80 M€ to take the succession of Etihad and it could justify the latter to pay the same sum.

 

[Machiavelli]

By following PSG case, they don't even know how to calculate fair market value in a reliable way.

What they did is they asked an auditing company to review the sponsorship and assess a value. PSG had the right to pick another auditing company from the ones validated by UEFA to assess the value.

The company paid by UEFA to sanction us said it is worth 30 M. The company paid by PSG not to be sanctioned said it is worth 70 M. Both with their very reliable tools and standards procedures. After deliberation, they decided to pick the 50 M€ value with a split result of 4 versus 3.

Their fair value market is bullshit. Look, just recently, Audi which is a stakeholder of Bayern Munich will pay 1 billion € over 12 years ( 60 M€ + bonus per year). But Audi is not considered as a related party. Does it mean that City and PSG can justify a contract around that value (or a bit lower) for the same kind of prestation ?

Usually, they say that fair value market is what City would get if the sponsor was not related. Example, you show that Air France would be happy to pay 80 M€ to take the succession of Etihad and it could justify the latter to pay the same sum.

Nein.

 

[dublinblue12]

Might report them to GDPR or whatever it is, being trying to unscribe from their poxy emailing list days now and it's impossible

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Hope this isn’t some form of rope-a-dope. Seems too good to be true.

 

[bobmcfc]

Perhaps because we trust City to employ professional, top quality lawyers and the club are acting on that advice. If we were a smaller tinpot club like the rags I would not be so confident but our owners mean business so I will be confident until proven otherwise

Yes but Uefa have a big old hard on for city and won’t give up easily. It’s not wrong to feel pessimistic about the whole situation and just like last time, they keep finding new ways and new rules to fuck us over

 

[Parisian]

Nein.

http://www.culturepsg.com/news/club...a-dans-l-etude-commandee-par-l-uefa-l-e/20832

If the PSG has denied the information published by the business daily, the newspaper L'Equipe confirms the information about the study of Octagon on these famous contracts considered as related parties, QTA, QNB or Ooredoo being directed companies by the Qatari state, like the PSG (via the QSI investment fund). According to this study, PSG's biggest sponsorship deal, the one linking it to Qatar Tourism Authoriy (QTA), is largely overvalued. It would thus pass from 100M € to less than 50M in the report of Octagon and, "according to some sources, Octagon would have even encrypted only between 20 and 30M €" says L'Equipe.

For its part, the PSG is based on a study by Nielsen, a company specializing in the field which, like Octagon, is recognized by UEFA, and the conclusions are opposed. For Nielsen, the amount of contracts is quite correct given the media and economic reports. The Paris club is also plunged into misunderstanding because the contract with QTA had been validated by UEFA up to € 100M in 2014 in a written agreement signed between the two parties. However, this amount has not changed since the PSG has largely diversified and increased its income since that time.