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

[MillionMilesAway]

If that’s the best they’ve got then we’re definitely in the clear.

I thought that. I can see them levying a fine for irregularities, which saves face if needed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...ating-manchester-city-s-ffp-conduct-1.3818908

 

[petrusha]

That assumes that the UAE really does stand squarely behind Man City. Personally I have always thought that City belong to Sheikh Mansour. ABu Dhabi and the UAE are not going to make economic sacrifices for Man City who are just one of their many Princes football clubs.

I think we can be quite confident that, at a minimum, the powers that be in Abu Dhabi are aware of the high profile enjoyed by a club competing at the top of the most popular domestic competition in the world and the reputational impact that can have on Abu Dhabi itself and take an interest accordingly. If they regarded us as just another football club owned by one royal among many, we wouldn't have people like Khaldoon and Simon Pearce on board. Those guys operate at the very top level in Abu Dhabi and wouldn't be involved in a venture unless it was regarded as very important by the people who count over there.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You have issues too I see.

Everyone has issues, Marv.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Loads but I manage to keep most of them to myself

Really?! ;-)

 

[MCFCFanTX]

David Conn yesterday (Irish Times) has a piece saying the most serious allegation for UEFA is the diguised sponsorship claim that the Sheikh was funding Etihad's sponsorship (and presumably others).

Was the club not already cleared of that years ago? I'm pretty sure all of our sponsors were considered legitimate when we were initially investigated. I may be wrong though. Still, if that is all they have then we should be fine.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yep. Admittedly, Henry did make reference to FFP when he first bought the club but to suggest that was his primary motivation insofar of doing things in some mythical correct way is bollocks. More likely that he hoped FFP would cement Liverpool’s place in the elite and increase the value of the club exponentially from the knockdown price he got it for. Someone should remind the short-sighted fuckwit that FFP 2.0 now allows new owners of clubs to do what City were originally punished for.

I think that's a little harsh. The revised FFP will have come in after Henry's comments. I suspect he was given assurances which proved to be of water.
The throwaway paragraph about him that was quoted by @citytillidie is just padding out of context.

 

[Marvin]

Loads but I manage to keep most of them to myself

We're all human. No point playing all this I'm better than you lark. Point scoring between blues seems pretty silly this morning.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We're all human. No point playing all this I'm better than you lark. Point scoring between blues seems pretty silly this morning.

You can’t post what you posted and not expect a robust reaction from some quarters, Marvin. You must have realised this by now.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I thought that. I can see them levying a fine for irregularities, which saves face if needed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...ating-manchester-city-s-ffp-conduct-1.3818908

I’ve told David I think he’s barking up the wrong tree on this. UEFA state in their Q&A on FFP that it’s fine for an owner or related party to sponsor a club as long as that transaction is at fair value when assessed against the market. Etihad is fair value and UEFA agreed it was when they looked at it in 2014. It doesn’t matter who paid the money therefore.

(It was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council by the way).

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Was the club not already cleared of that years ago? I'm pretty sure all of our sponsors were considered legitimate when we were initially investigated. I may be wrong though. Still, if that is all they have then we should be fine.

I think it's a finesse from the Spiegel leaks.
Others here have stated that any investment through related sponsorships has to be at market value. That was assessed and any revisions applied when the last sanctions were applied.

As far as I can see, the allegation here is that City lied/misled about the true source of the money - not that an associated company funded above fair market value, but that a large amount of it was from the owner and not disclosed. David Conn has stated that this would be in breach of company rules somehow (see the end of the irishtimes link for a brief note).

 

[scousemanc]

For those of you who are suffering from moral queasiness, can I remind you of something I posted earlier.

The top 12 highest transfers of all time are currently playing for just 6 clubs: United, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus and PSG

The 10 highest paid footballers of all time are currently playing for just 8 clubs: as above plus Atletico Madrid and Arsenal.

Two points:

1. The rules have been put in place to protect this group at the top of the spending league, nothing more. Morality and fair play don't come into it.

2. City are challenging these clubs not because they have broken into that spending leage (City players are on neither of those lists), but because they are better

See you at the match tonight

*Correction: Liverpool are not in the second list so it should say 7 clubs, not 8

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I’ve told David I think he’s barking up the wrong tree on this. UEFA state in their Q&A on FFP that it’s fine for an owner or related party to sponsor a club as long as that transaction is at fair value when assessed against the market. Etihad is fair value and UEFA agreed it was when they looked at it in 2014. It doesn’t matter who paid the money therefore.

(It was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council by the way).

I'd got that bit. What's the relationship between Sheikh Mansour, ADUG and ADEC?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

That assumes that the UAE really does stand squarely behind Man City. Personally I have always thought that City belong to Sheikh Mansour. ABu Dhabi and the UAE are not going to make economic sacrifices for Man City who are just one of their many Princes football clubs.

I disagree on that front. City are a very high profile tool in the UAE's armoury and any draconian assault on us that would result in loss of face for our owners would not be well received. Khaldoon's the PM isn't he?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd got that bit. What's the relationship between Sheikh Mansour, ADUG and ADEC?

Sheikh Mansour owns ADUG which is a private company. He’s not on the EC (but Khaldoon is).

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Sheikh Mansour owns ADUG which is a private company. He’s not on the EC (but Khaldoon is).

Thanks. So ADUG and ADEC are mostly independent but presumably cooperative?
And any additional funding to pay the Etihad sponsorship came from ADEC?

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

That’s exactly how I see it too. That, and a huge upsurge in sales of fanny wipes over the last 48 hours.

I bought Superdrug's entire stock in Kingston yesterday, and told them to order more. Much more

 

[Neville Kneville]

I think it's a finesse from the Spiegel leaks.
Others here have stated that any investment through related sponsorships has to be at market value. That was assessed and any revisions applied when the last sanctions were applied.

As far as I can see, the allegation here is that City lied/misled about the true source of the money - not that an associated company funded above fair market value, but that a large amount of it was from the owner and not disclosed. David Conn has stated that this would be in breach of company rules somehow (see the end of the irishtimes link for a brief note).

A: Sheikh Mansour & all his advisors were daft enough to break the law in an obvious manner thus UEFA will come down on us like a ton of bricks.
B: They weren't. UEFA find nothing & clear us.
C: UEFA have to find 'something' to get us on, so change the rules, again & fine us for some misdemeanor..
D: They can't get us on anything, so make do with spreading rumours about us being guilty but they can't do anything about it.

I recon A & B are non starters.
I'm going D, with a bit of C.

 

[City Man]

That was an excellent post from @petrusha.

Probably been said (many times) but Etihad Airlines are a state funded organisation so if it is the Emir that's referenced in the supposed leaked email as 'His Highness', then it is 100% legal for them to invest any amount of money in to the company to promote it around the world. UEFA have already passed the deal off as fair market value so where Etihad get their income from is immaterial and in fact City don't have to know about it and certainly aren't obliged to pass that information on.

It’s the use of the word ‘flaunting’ that annoys me.
The press always add hyperbole to our stories to make them sound worse than they are, almost an implied guilt that we have done something wrong, ie flaunting, and have yet to be found out and punished for it.

I object to the word flaunting as well. It should be flouting.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A: Sheikh Mansour & all his advisors were daft enough to break the law in an obvious manner thus UEFA will come down on us like a ton of bricks.
B: They weren't. UEFA find nothing & clear us.
C: UEFA have to find 'something' to get us on, so change the rules, again & fine us for some misdemeanor..
D: They can't get us on anything, so make do with spreading rumours about us being guilty but they can't do anything about it.

I recon A & B are non starters.
I'm going D, with a bit of C.

Pretty close to what I think. A bit more of C, and I suspect the club may swallow that for the sake of good relations.

 

[Marvin]

You can’t post what you posted and not expect a robust reaction from some quarters, Marvin. You must have realised this by now.

It's all Marvin's fault.