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

[John Wayne]

And our response would be "prove it"

Which is exactly right. In the open forum of a tribunal, it would be alleged that funding provided by Etihad was in fact sourced via a private wealth fund set up by the club's ownership. The evidence against us appears to be a number of historical emails about which nobody knows the context in which they were sent. The club's ownership would deny that the funding provided by Etihad was sourced from the private wealth fund. It would be argued that the emails were never acted upon after regard was given to the rules. UEFA would then ask Etihad to provide accounting evidence relating to how they are able to operate as a commercial entity. Etihad, in no uncertain terms, would decline the request. The tribunal would find that UEFA have been unable to secure meaningful evidence about how Etihad funds its commercial enterprises. The tribunal would find that such information goes way beyond the remit of an organisation whose job it is to regulate European football. The tribunal would find that UEFA reached a settlement over the same matter several years earlier. The action brought against Manchester City would therefore be comprehensively defeated.

 

[cleavers]

So here we are the day after one of the finest days in our history talking and worrying about this shit.

I'm not, I'm looking forward to a cup final at the weekend.

If they do try to ban us we'll go to court and win, in the meantime we'll be carrying on in it, and if they don't who gives a f**k ?

 

[cleavers]

He is a good journalist.

I didn't know him before he launched the whole revelations about UEFA trying to corner PSG by using retroactive devaluation of our sponsors. I had pretty much the same reactions as can be seen here. Truth be told, he has some very good inside sources from UEFA.

You shouldn't take his informations as a wish or witch hunt. You should take it as being the true reflection of UEFA will.

Anyway, this whole story only highlights more how stupid that FFP is. You are under alert of being banned for doing something deemed "illegal" or "ethically wrong", only because the illegal rules prevent you from doing "legal" or "ethically right" business.

No doubt, that spanish (+ Bayern + Juve) lobby is powerful.

Good post.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Our situation is different to theirs in that we did not disclose that our owners or His Highness or whomever was fronting up 7/8ths of the Etihad cash, and that had UEFA known that was the case, we would have been hit with more severe sanctions. Those will be the grounds used to differentiate our case from PSG’s

Whoever was responsible for the appalling lack of security of sensitive information is presumably no longer in post?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Which is exactly right. In the open forum of a tribunal, it would be alleged that funding provided by Etihad was in fact sourced via a private wealth fund set up by the club's ownership. The evidence against us appears to be a number of historical emails about which nobody knows the context in which they were sent. The club's ownership would deny that the funding provided by Etihad was sourced from the private wealth fund. It would be argued that the emails were never acted upon after regard was given to the rules. UEFA would then ask Etihad to provide accounting evidence relating to how they are able to operate as a commercial entity. Etihad, in no uncertain terms, would decline the request. The tribunal would find that UEFA have been unable to secure meaningful evidence about how Etihad funds its commercial enterprises. The tribunal would find that such information goes way beyond the remit of an organisation whose job it is to regulate European football. The tribunal would find that UEFA reached a settlement over the same matter several years earlier. The action brought against Manchester City would therefore be comprehensively defeated.

That's almost word for word exactly how I see it playing out. For the sake of argument, let's say City did cheat the system; there's no evidence that actually proves it. Certainly not in those emails anyway.

 

[Big Blue Mick]

Lets bring down the whole house of cards at UEFA. So many vested interests and conflicts of interests in that organisation it is unbelievable. Seeing that absolute weapon Gill sat in the dock would give me more pleasure than winning their trophy.

 

[Parisian]

Would it not be counterintuitive to ban us from the CL and, ultimately, going against what FFP is meant to stand for?

A typical CL season to us is prob worth 80-100mil - about 20% of our annual revenue.

Taking this amount away from us would almost certainly see us breaching FFP rules again...and then what? another ban?

I thought the whole idea of FFP was to make clubs sustainable?

This is actually the stupid part of FFP.

Their true goal about PSG and City, though, is to force those clubs to sell and not compete for new big players. So you'll be weakened on the sporting side. It is all about that.

 

[oakiecokie]

I'm not, I'm looking forward to a cup final at the weekend.

If they do try to ban us we'll go to court and win, in the meantime we'll be carrying on in it, and if they don't who gives a f**k ?

"coz we`re all pissed up,MCFC OK".

 

[Marvin]

I don't think there is any substantial news. I've read that the NY Times article and they say that the investigators want UEFA to impose at least a season's ban from the CL. Well of course they must say that. That is nowhere near the end game. We knew they were after that.

The most interesting aspect seemed to me to be this:

"City’s punishment most likely will be linked to an accusation that it provided misleading statements in resolving an earlier case, as well as false statements to licensing authorities in England, and not over the true value of the sponsorship agreements."

Excuse me but that warrants a ban? That too me sounds like a watering down of UEFA's case against City. It's more a case of UEFA being unhappy with City's alleged 'duplicity', i.e. complying with the regulations of FFP and at the same time working against them to minimise the scope of sanctions, but what do they really expect when they changed the goalposts at the death? Probably a bit dangerous to read too much into a journalist's interpretation.

I expect this will go down the same route as the PSG charges. i.e. UEFA sanction City to save face, City appeal to CAS. It gets thrown out, and UEFA an say we tried. Failing that it goes to Court.

No matter what, the so called liberal media will carry on smearing our club instead of looking at the exercise of power to protect vested interest which is what FFP has been all about from the beginning. Mancunians are finding out the hard way what being a 2nd class citizen means.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

So; you just pulled that figure out of thin air then, yeah?

Yep.

 

[Parisian]

Nothing is going to happen. The last wo paragraphs say it all. If PSG get away with no fines and bans so will we.

The real difference about PSG case is that they pursue PSG over the inflated deals. PSG had to go to CAS to win on a technicality. And even then, PSG had to sell for 145 M€ of players to comply. It is not a sanction in name but it is effectively a sanction.

They attack City over another angle, which is the truthful reporting of financial affairs. PSG has no problem in that sense (so far) because they were pretty transparent and straightforward with those big inflated sponsorships like QTA.

Also, the Nasser tidbit : they should remind how and by whom he got elected. It is not UEFA electing him but ECA members (the CEO of the european clubs). He wouldn't have got the position if Gazidis had not left for Milan AC and i suspect that the overt support of PSG on the new Champions League helped.

 

[Marvin]

That's almost word for word exactly how I see it playing out. For the sake of argument, let's say City did cheat the system; there's no evidence that actually proves it. Certainly not in those emails anyway.

If you read the NY Times article, which I am sure you have, it's interesting that they say the focus of the UEFA investigation has shifted from financial 'irregularity' to misleading information. I think that was the only thing significant in the article.

I doubt whether City have communicated or assisted UEFA's investigation, preferring to keep our powder dry.

 

[Mike Rathbone]

How can financial fair play claim to have the welfare of a football club at the forefront of it's campaign when teams like Bolton are on the rails?

The pretence is laughable. The only reason F.F.P. was brought in was to prevent M.C.F.C from achieving European dominance.

And on that note we really need to do better in the CL - it's the one area where we consistently under-achieve and, quite honestly, I really really want us to win it!!

 

[salfordbluetrue]

That's almost word for word exactly how I see it playing out. For the sake of argument, let's say City did cheat the system; there's no evidence that actually proves it. Certainly not in those emails anyway.

The question is would City contest it? which is what the leak is probably about, This could be seen as just a little hick up? for our owners it certainly is.
It is also opportunity to find and isolate our attackers

 

[RyanP3609]

Let me get my head around this...

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the CEO/Owner of PSG and also BeIn Sports (one of the champions league's main TV deals) is on the board of UEFA. A company who have a champions league competition that shows games on BeIn Sports, which has PSG in it?

Am I missing something here?

Next you'll be telling me some of the other board members are an ex Utd chief executive, and the current chairman of Juventus.

Suuuuuuuurely impartiality is at the utmost of their moral and ethical standards and obligations.

It's a fucking farce. Old ****s clinging on to any semblance to the "..way it was...".

 

[supercity88]

If you read the NY Times article, which I am sure you have, it's interesting that they say the focus of the UEFA investigation has shifted from financial 'irregularity' to misleading information. I think that was the only thing significant in the article.

I doubt whether City have communicated or assisted UEFA's investigation, preferring to keep our powder dry.

And ultimately that misleading information made no difference. We failed to hit the numbers required (as rules were changed), and the information given confirmed that. There would be a case if it impacted whether sanctions were imposed.

UEFA will be opening a huge can of worms if they pursue this. City will throw that late rule change in their face and I am sure the CAS will throw their case out. If not the High Court would for a lack of fair warning.

I am sure UEFA know this and it is purely a front to be seen to be looking into things. They must know City took the hit and didn't fight the sanctions to maintain a relationship. We will fuck them over if they look to do us again.

 

[pudge]

Must be FA Cup final week

 

[cleavers]

Let me get my head around this...

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the CEO/Owner of PSG and also BeIn Sports (one of the champions league's main TV deals) is on the board of UEFA. A company who have a champions league competition that shows games on BeIn Sports, which has PSG in it?

Am I missing something here?

Next you'll be telling me some of the other board members are an ex Utd chief executive, and the current chairman of Juventus.

Suuuuuuuurely impartiality is at the utmost of their moral and ethical standards and obligations.

It's a fucking farce. Old ****s clinging on to any semblance to the "..way it was...".

Yes, and don't forget that the same PSG were part of the old G14 cartel (or whatever it was) anyway, nothing dodgy going on here.

 

[Brendan110_0]

This is how they get the United cash cow back in CL. Ban us.

 

[Parisian]

Let me get my head around this...

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the CEO/Owner of PSG and also BeIn Sports (one of the champions league's main TV deals) is on the board of UEFA. A company who have a champions league competition that shows games on BeIn Sports, which has PSG in it?

Am I missing something here?

Next you'll be telling me some of the other board members are an ex Utd chief executive, and the current chairman of Juventus.

Suuuuuuuurely impartiality is at the utmost of their moral and ethical standards and obligations.

It's a fucking farce. Old ****s clinging on to any semblance to the "..way it was...".

I know some of you think UEFA is somehow helping PSG but look at the facts : PSG is constantly under threat with FFP, PSG got a crook referee against Barcelona two years ago (even if they played like crap, they should not have been out), PSG got rightly eliminated by Real but in the first leg Ramos did a clear handball and Real equalized on an offside penalty, PSG got a last minute VAR intervention to give MU a penalty for handball.

I really don't see how you can think PSG is getting some kind of preferential treatment whatsoever.