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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.

keith's curle

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Jun 2014
Messages
630
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.
Wow! That's certainly some clarification, many thanks.
And it's nice to know I'm not losing my marbles. Yet...
 

Metalartin

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Jul 2015
Messages
9,812
I thought the emails mentioned HH would arrange the funds for Etihad to meet their obligations. Which is where the out of context claim comes in from the official club statement, as HH is probably referring to the Crown Prince and not our owner. I've seen ADUG mentioned only in the press without an actual quote from the email given, I'd assumed this was a case of Chinese whispers, HH becomes Sheikh Mansour, then ADUG.

Does anyone have the actual quote with ADUG referenced, if there is one? I'm sure I asked this a month or so back and it was decided that there was no quote from the emails given.

After watching the tactics UEFA via its auditors, have been using on PSG. Whereby they are seemingly trying to lower their fair market value estimations every year rather than increase them. Which could be to suit the other clubs in Europe around them rather than what they are actually worth to a sponsor at present. I think if Etihad are not a related party, we should keep it recognised as such despite this case investigated, as I suspect we'll get the PSG treatment turned up to 11.

On that note, the most recent article I've read comparing the PL club sponsorship deals, has us at £45m a season. I do think this is low for the clubs current status but the people doing articles on it seem to think this is what we're getting. I had the assumption that our deal is flexible, where we can take £25m one season and £65m in another to help us balance the books. This might be why that year caught Etihad cold so to speak, along with their losses that year and they had no chance of meeting it without some help.

Sometimes I think we'd be better off letting the Etihad contract run down and get a big Chinese sponsor in that nobody can question. I suppose that's more about proving how full of shit the people complaining are, it's not about where the money comes from and never has been. It's the fact that City have money now and they don't like it.
 
Last edited:

GornikDaze

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 Jul 2012
Messages
4,877
Sometimes I think we'd be better off letting the Etihad contract run down and get a big Chinese sponsor in that nobody can question. I suppose that's more about proving how full of shit the people complaining are, it's not about where the money comes from and never has been. It's the fact that City have money now and they don't like it.
I quite like the idea of a change of sponsor on the shirt... could someone mock up the fruit salad kit with “FUCK UEFA” in big Chinese characters?
 

cheekybids

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Messages
2,218
Manchester City have been fantastic for Abu Dhabi & they have often said are the highest profile of all the sponsorships & partnerships they do. Why would they give that up when they’ve been the visionaries behind it all just because shit house journalists & corrupt officials question the legitimacy of it all.

They could easily get more from someone else but they deserve the reduced sponsorship for making it happen.
 

SilverFox2

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 May 2014
Messages
4,420
Location
Almeria
Manchester City have been fantastic for Abu Dhabi & they have often said are the highest profile of all the sponsorships & partnerships they do. Why would they give that up when they’ve been the visionaries behind it all just because shit house journalists & corrupt officials question the legitimacy of it all.

They could easily get more from someone else but they deserve the reduced sponsorship for making it happen.
In fairness this sponsorship was and is part of the flagship plan to extend our owners and for that mattter AD's business investment interests.

Surely up to AD to decide if its ailing airline can be helped long term with its business plan which includes high cost advertising with City.
 

Prestwich_Blue

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Messages
50,709
Location
Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
In fairness this sponsorship was and is part of the flagship plan to extend our owners and for that mattter AD's business investment interests.

Surely up to AD to decide if its ailing airline can be helped long term with its business plan which includes high cost advertising with City.
Makes far more sense than Chevrolet, who don't sell cars in Europe anymore, sponsoring United.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top