Thanks PB well detailed summary.I've posted this on Twitter. It's in response to Christoph Winterbach of Der Spiegel, who I've been talking to for a while.
Doing my response this way as that means I can do a proper thread. Let me try to clear this up as I understand it. FFP is clear that owners or related parties to them can inject funds via sponsorships. But the definition of a related party can be subjective. It's set out in the accounting standard IAS24 & City (and their auditors) maintain that none of the Abu Dhabi companies are related parties under this. If they were then the transactions would have to be specified as such in the accounts and they aren't. UEFA may dispute this.
If they were related parties then those deals have to be at 'fair market value'. The main Etihad deal was deemed to be FMV by UEFA so should be fireproof, regardless of where the money originated. So any issue is with the other sponsorships - Etisalat, Aabar & Visit Abu Dhabi. The argument is therefore presumably (a) whether these are related parties & if so (b) whether the deals are therefore FMV. If not (a) then (b) doesn't apply. UEFA's auditors claimed that they were related parties and they were overvalued. That might have to be tested in court.
As well as IAS24, UEFA have self-defined a related party as any entities from a connected source, eg Abu Dhabi state companies. These are not allowed to contribute >30% of total revenue and I believe they don't (it's maybe 20% at the very most). So that's not an issue either. So the core issue may be whether the other three companies are related parties under IAS24 & whether the deals are FMV. however if this only relates to the 2012/13 year then it's questionable whether UEFA could revisit the 2014 settlement agreement.
Your own articles said that UEFA knew of these deals in 2014 and had questioned them but we failed anyway & were sanctioned. The Galatasaray CAS ruling possibly closes the route of a re-opened punishment but there's the potential issue around source of funds/timing. If this additional funding carried on after the 2014 agreement then this may be a key issue for investigation. UEFA would presumably want to check whether it was disguised owner investment so would have to conclusively prove that these funds came from ADUG/Sheikh Mansour. As we discussed my firm understanding is that Abu Dhabi protocol means 'His Highness', when not followed by a name, refers to Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ). 'His Highness Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed' would be specified in the case of Sheikh Mansour.
I can't imagine UEFA has any power to compel any Abu Dhabi company to open its books so the investigation would focus purely on City. If UEFA can't prove that these companies are related parties or that the source of funds is ADUG then they have, in my view, no case. This is only my personal view based on my knowledge of the FFP regulations. I've had no input from City and have only seen the documents you've chosen to publish so it's also based on my reading of those.
There may be other avenues or issues for them to investigate but I have no knowledge of what these may be. I note that City have welcomed the investigation & I think it's needed to clear this up once and for all. The question is whether people will accept it if City are cleared.
1) All depends on whether these companies are deemed to be related parties. If not then they're free to pay what they like. If they are, then the transactions have to be fair market value. Etihad clearly is fair value (& UEFA agreed it was) so it's utterly irrelevant where the money comes from and UEFA's own website clearly states this. Thr Aabar & Etisalat were deemed to be over-valued but, again, are they related parties? If not (and City say they aren't) then again it's irrelevant. If so, then UEFA would be entitled to mak these down to what was considered fair value. Even if it did, we still might not fail FFP. But UEFA knew about these deals and we agreed not to increase them as part of the settlement so they can't claim ignorance of them.
2) This is a UEFA issue as I understand it but irrelevant for FFP purposes.
3) This is a potential issue but UEFA also knew about this arrangement and PWC had flagged their suspicions. As far as I can see, there's about £5-7m going out of this company every year. We may have to agree to bring this back in-house or report it as part of our FFP submission. I believe we've got enough in the FFP "pot" to soak it up without failing FFP anyway. As far as I can see we're carrying in excess of a £50m accumulated surplus based on the 2018 results, compared to a maximum allowable deviation of a £24m loss.
So even in a worst case scenario where all these things were taken into account and our FFP assessment was revisited, I still think we probably wouldn't have failed.
4) This is a FIFA issue so not related to FFP.
Think the whole point of the club welcoming it is it will end it once and for all.
Hard to say. I think the experiment of setting up these other companies was a genuine attempt to centralise some core services and create profit centres but we report their results as part of our FFP reporting perimeter so if it was conceived as a way of escaping FFP, as some have suggested, it hasn't achieved that. The 2018 accounts suggested that most of the staff farmed out have been quietly brough back in.Do you think the club would have arranged the staffing side the same way if FFP hadn't been created? Would they have kept them all under the 'Manchester City' umbrella or would they have still used the CFG as the base?
Hard to say. I think the experiment of setting up these other companies was a genuine attempt to centralise some core services and create profit centres but we report their results as part of our FFP reporting perimeter so if it was conceived as a way of escaping FFP, as some have suggested, it hasn't achieved that. The 2018 accounts suggested that most of the staff farmed out have been quietly brough back in.
Yes, you must beAh I see. The old "must be a United fan" because you don't follow the same thought process as everybody else.
Good argument.....
Yes, you must be
Total staff number increased from 325 in 2017 to 449 in 2018 so I'm assuming most of this was staff brought back into City from the two other companies.I didn't realise that they'd brought most back in.
The CFG as a whole is a very unique and new thing for the football authorities to understand.
Could 3 be a concern re PL FFP?1) All depends on whether these companies are deemed to be related parties. If not then they're free to pay what they like. If they are, then the transactions have to be fair market value. Etihad clearly is fair value (& UEFA agreed it was) so it's utterly irrelevant where the money comes from and UEFA's own website clearly states this. Thr Aabar & Etisalat were deemed to be over-valued but, again, are they related parties? If not (and City say they aren't) then again it's irrelevant. If so, then UEFA would be entitled to mak these down to what was considered fair value. Even if it did, we still might not fail FFP. But UEFA knew about these deals and we agreed not to increase them as part of the settlement so they can't claim ignorance of them.
2) This is a UEFA issue as I understand it but irrelevant for FFP purposes.
3) This is a potential issue but UEFA also knew about this arrangement and PWC had flagged their suspicions. As far as I can see, there's about £5-7m going out of this company every year. We may have to agree to bring this back in-house or report it as part of our FFP submission. I believe we've got enough in the FFP "pot" to soak it up without failing FFP anyway. As far as I can see we're carrying in excess of a £50m accumulated surplus based on the 2018 results, compared to a maximum allowable deviation of a £24m loss.
So even in a worst case scenario where all these things were taken into account and our FFP assessment was revisited, I still think we probably wouldn't have failed.
4) This is a FIFA issue so not related to FFP.