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

[mancity2012_eamo]

This may be a whoosh moment for me however i'll treat your Question as genuine (for now)

You have to go back to the very beginning and look at the very instigation of FFP
City did indeed sign up to abide by the rules put in place and set about putting in place various schemes to increase incomings and reduce outgoings (all of which are within the rules) we even employed the same people Uefa employed to draw up those rules to find ways around them. Essentially we believed those rules were put in place to stop us investing in our own business at a time when we were committed to do so to within the 10 year business plan that had been drawn up where escalated investment was critical to making that plan a success.
At the end of the 1st accountability period 2013 - 14 we had indeed spent a lot of money in fees and wages for players. Based on the rules that were in place we were able to discount a substantial amount of the excess monies as pre arranged wage commitments before FFP was thought of. We were however still struggling to meet the 3 year loss amount for the period that was allowed 34 Million. So we submitted our accounts as verified by our accountants and City do this publicly - not in the Cayman Islands where nobody gets to see it. We felt we had nothing to hide. However no sooner than the audited accounts were submitted Uefa changed the rules to ensure we couldn't claim the pre 2010 wages. It meant we would fail the test by a lot rather than by a little. We were clearly mislead and City were angry that their good faith had been abused.
The failure ensured Uefa carried out an investigation of our accounts and disagreements regarding sponsorship amounts and as to what is and isn't allowed. Suffice it to say agreements were reached on all those sponsorships and schemes whereby some were allowed to stand as they were whilst City agreed to curtail others and not continue with other schemes. NONE of the sponsorships was deemed to be overvalued but we agreed to be punished for failing the overall break even requirement. Such agreements are part of the process of FFP and are in fact integral to its operation. We suffered a huge fine, a restriction on squad size for the CL and agreement to abide by the break even amounts going forward under close scrutiny by Uefa.
We stuck to the rules, increased our sponsorships across the board (middle Eastern sponsorship now roughly accounts up to only 20% of our income only). We currently sit 5th in DeLoittes money list and expect to exceed income of £600 Million turnover this reporting year with no debt ensuring we have no fear of breaching the break even amount and will make a healthy profit (without our owner putting a penny in) for the last 3 years. This amounts to the completion of the first 10 year phase of City business plan and its utter success (despite the initial couple of years requiring the expenditure)
Last year following a hacker stealing lots of private information from servers all over the world (mainly Portugal) trying to blackmail banks without success certain emails were ahem given to a German newspaper (der Spiegel) who act as a whistleblower for alleged corrupt practices particularly within football.
They produced a series of articles quoting elements of emails they allege showed that Citys owner had in fact paid monies to some of Citys sponsors to pay the sponsorship fees. I should point out this doesn't artificially inflate these sponsorships as they are currently at values commensurate with our position in football and it was agreed by Uefa at the time we were investigated. What is surprising and what most journalists and twitter gobshites don't understand is that this process (if proven and City say it isn't) is not either illegal or against FFP rules. I accept it wouldn't be in the spirit of the Regulations but that is another argument. Most would argue that depriving an owner of investing money in his own business is not in the spirit of competition law in Europe as well.
So now Uefa have again investigated City on the back of those alleged emails and despite agreeing to keep stum and carry out a thorough process have done neither. They or as the press like to say "sources close to the investigation" have obviously blabbed to the press regarding findings and punishments to be administered before due process has been completed. So City declared guilty before the case is heard then!
So City have been referred to the Uefa FFP Adjunctory Chamber of the process for consideration of sentence and today we also find out that this investigation has been rushed is indeed incomplete because the matter had to be concluded within a 5 year period of the initial findings, ending today as they are FFP rules for the limitation of alleged offences.
It is still unclear what they are actually charging City with breaching but City have issued some extremely strong legal statements indicating we have given irrefutable evidence to the investigation that proves we are innocent of the charges of financial irregularity. Also indicated as any innocent party should faced with a guilty verdict that they will appeal any findings to an appropriate judicial review, likely in this case to be the Court for Arbitration in Sport (CAS)
That covers 5 years of bullshit and farce and there are other trivialities like members of both investigatory boards having "conflicts of interest" i.e Rick Parry ex of Liverpool Board being on the AC board deciding any punishment.

You can find all the Der Spiegel reports on line and reading through this thread in its entirety will greatly inform you of the intricacies of the whole sham that is FFP if you care to look. I for one am now reasonably well versed in the actions of Uefa in response to these investigations and their documented process. Most of the things about FFP that will surprise anybody are what is allowed as opposed to what isn't.

Beautifully succinct, for the 6-7 year period involved.
I think that should be just the right level of detail to start DAV771 off.

 

[Henkeman]

I have to admit FFP is good for owners though.
Not the ambitious kind of owners like PSG and City ones but the Glazers, Kroenke of this world. Their clubs passively make money thanks to their history and stature and they can just get the cash without having to invest a dime.
PSG and City are nightmare for them because they have to explain why they are not investing in the market when they are making so much money.

Oh it's more than that - it's not just that City and PSG are a nightmare, they don't want anyone doing with other clubs lacking history - you know, Wolves, Villa, Anderlecht, Preston, Benfica, those kinds of clubs.

 

[SWP's back]

What I mean by "financial doping" is that, from looking from the outside it would seem that the club has been spending disproportionately relative to it's earnings over the last 10 years or so. As I said I'm not particularly clued up on this and was just looking for some answers from sensible people who are interested in actually discussing the topic rather than throwing out childish insults. I should have known better.

You’re certainly correct, you’re not clued up and obviously have no knowledge of City’s revenues over the last five years.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Hi,

Please don't ban me as this is my first post and I'm just interested to get some answers. I came on here this morning as obviously we've all seen the news and I wanted to gauge what the average City fans reaction is.

Now (here comes the part where I fear I'll be banned) it seems that looking at the club from the outside there's obvious "financial doping" going on. I can't see how City could have achieved this much success in such a short space of time without it.

So, I am just wondering where the thoughts that UEFA have an agenda against City are coming from? I understand the opinion that FFP caters to the established big teams and ensures that they remain that way, but aside from that, I can't see what other reason there is to be angry? Surely UEFA are investigating/bringing charges for a reason other than they just don't like City.

They wouldn't just be looking into the club for no reason either, right? There's no smoke without fire & all that?

Apologies for signing up just to ask a simple questions but I know no City fans personally and there's no chance of getting sense out of anyone on Twitter etc

Even breaking it down to the most simple terms, as I (the average, not massively invested football fan) see it, City agreed to play by certain rules and have essentially broken or attempted to break those rules. Is this correct?

Again, please don't ban me for this. I'm just a confused neutral with no idea what's going on!

Thanks

Let me give you an analogy and I will take it away from football
imagine you buy a trucking company at the time there are no rules in regards to hours of service for your drivers but you are required to maintain tachograph records.
After a couple of years the regulators say actually we are going to introduce hours of service regulations and we are going to retrospectively introduce them.
You're worried but it turns out you actually comply with them, then without warning the goalposts are moved and you have retrospectively failed(please keep in mind you are being punished for actions taken before the regulation was brought in)
At this point you are punished and your fine is distributed to your rivals
So you falsify some of your time-cards to stop further punishment.
To top it off some of your rivals being found guilty of the same offense are not only let off but are left off while you are still being punished
Years later someone breaks into your office steals some records and opens the whole thing up again
Would you feel somewhat unhappy?

 

[andyhinch]

I think you’ve just clarkied yourself ;)
I don’t for one minute believe he’s a Newport or Leeds fan. Newport is wall to wall rag/scouse, maybe he “follows” Newport this season as they’ve been on the TV and have made the playoff final.

TBF met some good lads down there when we played them

 

[SWP's back]

They also own Bein sports, which by some strange quirk, hold the rights for the CL.

How is it a strange quirk? Bein Sports is one of the largest sports broadcasters in the world, covering the MENA region, Australia and Canada and they paid for the rights.

Didn’t stop uefa trying to attack them again though and they would have been successful but for the intervention of the CAS.

 

[SWP's back]

Who the fucks he Sam ?

Another “journalist” from Liverpool.

 

[SWP's back]

Come on guys. Who the f..k is this guy really? Cannot understand why you bother to read such drivel.

I don't have tw@ter, don't buy or read newspapers, don't follow any media on Facebook and I feel much better for it. The media only tell you what they want you to know. I get my news from watching the 6 o'clock news and R4. I like to think I am integillent enough to know crap when I hear it. Most of the time the BBC News is fair and unbiased. Note I said 'most of the time'. I strongly advise most of you on here to do the same.

By clicking on links, following on Tw@ter, Faceache etc all you do is encourage them to carry on.

I don’t “follow” him, someone I follow replied to him and I also have both barrels. The more people that reply to this sort of disinformation, the better, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Chi-town blues]

Hi,

Please don't ban me as this is my first post and I'm just interested to get some answers. I came on here this morning as obviously we've all seen the news and I wanted to gauge what the average City fans reaction is.

Now (here comes the part where I fear I'll be banned) it seems that looking at the club from the outside there's obvious "financial doping" going on. I can't see how City could have achieved this much success in such a short space of time without it.

So, I am just wondering where the thoughts that UEFA have an agenda against City are coming from? I understand the opinion that FFP caters to the established big teams and ensures that they remain that way, but aside from that, I can't see what other reason there is to be angry? Surely UEFA are investigating/bringing charges for a reason other than they just don't like City.

They wouldn't just be looking into the club for no reason either, right? There's no smoke without fire & all that?

Apologies for signing up just to ask a simple questions but I know no City fans personally and there's no chance of getting sense out of anyone on Twitter etc

Even breaking it down to the most simple terms, as I (the average, not massively invested football fan) see it, City agreed to play by certain rules and have essentially broken or attempted to break those rules. Is this correct?

Again, please don't ban me for this. I'm just a confused neutral with no idea what's going on!

Thanks

Explain financial doping .

 

[SWP's back]

More like the owner

No, nothing like that at all.

The AC tried to further sanction PSG and PSG went to CAS, like City will.

 

[Marvin]

Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.

 

[M12Blue]

Rumour going around that Sheffield United, Aston Villa and Derby (possibly Derby but might be wrong) will all fail FFP like Birmingham did, but they are delaying providing the EFL with accounts until the end of the season. Not sure how it would work if one got promoted seems as Birmingham were deducted points.

Hadn’t heard that. But seemingly Sheffield United received 3 mill from family of bin laden. Came out in court. Suppose it helps win manager of the year

 

[Chi-town blues]

He will answer questions on this.

Incidentally, it might have escaped the attention. Our statement already outlines we expect to be found guilty now before it goes to CAS.

We are calling Uefa's bluff and threatening them in equal measure.

I also believe we have previously raised our issues with some of the individuals involved in this whole sorry mess.

People will be financially ruined when the final punch is thrown :)

Like *^*

 

[M12Blue]

Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.

The simple bar graphic boy is on holiday, bugger

 

[Marvin]

Explain financial doping .

Take out the Arab sponsorships which total < £100m pa, City still make huge revenues.

City were financially doped if you like after the takeover but another description would be owner investment in the fabric of the club to build it up. That's wrong is it?

Now it would be if it was against the rules as decided by football....but UEFA changed the rules midway through the assessment process hence the scramble for monies. That context was never once explained by the financial media.

The Liverpool fans and assorted haters genuinely think we are cheats, we are not.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Hadn’t heard that. But seemingly Sheffield United received 3 mill from family of bin laden. Came out in court. Suppose it helps win manager of the year

didn't something like that happen to QPR a few years ago they got found guilty after winning promotion and punishment was applied after they went down

 

[laserblue]

Hadn’t heard that. But seemingly Sheffield United received 3 mill from family of bin laden. Came out in court. Suppose it helps win manager of the year

The bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia is huge and one part of it owns a huge multinational conglomerate construction company. Osama was most definitely the odd one out in his very large extended family.

I'd venture to suggest that the vast majority of observers would be more focused on the bin Laden angle than the £3 million.

 

[Henkeman]

Why is it that the context of MCFC finances is never publicised by commentators?

i.e. even without Arab investment we will have revenues of c. £500m next season and be hugely profitable. We are labelled an oil club, but in reality as most football fans will now accept, City generate cash surpluses. In that background it seems bizarre to punish an ownership who have done what FFP was supposedly designed to do: square expenses and revenues.

BBC / ITV etc need a simple bar graphic of gap between revenue and expenses in 2010 and now, and then lets talk about FFP.

In order to change the way it's viewed, City would probably have to announce big fat profits in the tens of millions and that their corporation tax bill is sizeable - it's pretty much impossible to argue against it being real.

Of course, fans would rightly be up in arms about ticket prices - but might be worth it as a one off.

 

[mrbelfry]

Some inane rambling thoughts

1) Der Speigal reports that Mansour has been funnelling money into City via Etihad sponsorships
2) This deal had previously been seen as a non related party so there was no restriction on how much Etihad could sponsor us
3) With the suggestion that the Sheik has funnelled money in it potentially becomes a related party? If so then rate the sponsorship at fair value and we fail FFP by an additional amount that is the difference between the amount we claimed less the new calculated fair value rate. We failed FFP anyway and we don't seem to be disputing that beyond the taking a pinch comment years ago.
4) if the issue of related parties isn't the problem then the problem is we hid those payments from UEFA? Other 'creative' bits of accounting were spotted and from memory we agreed to not increase some sponsorships and not allowed to centralise some salaries to the CFG (if my memory is correct)

Now I presume City know what we are being investigated for - have UEFA officially said or is it just 'leaks' ?

If we are being investigated based on the der Spiegel allegations then have they seen the data dump or are they basing the investigation on what was reported in the papers? If they've seen the data dump then how are they sure they have seen all the relevant files AND/OR a complete collection of data that was stolen? If they have seen a complete collection of data that was stolen how can they be sure they have seen all the documents that exist? There could be a bunch of files and emails that they haven't seen simply because they weren't stolen.

If they have not had access to the data dump then are they simply basing their investigation on what was reported? What criteria are they then using to determine facts other than it says it in the paper?

If they ask City "hey guys is this true?" and then City say "nah bro we good" on what basis are they continuing their investigation? Have they established the legitimacy of the stolen emails and if they are legitimate the context in which they exist? Presumably they've asked for explantation which City have provided. They've intimated they have more questions but then in the meantime passed the case on to another chamber.

And all this isn't for breaking rules we've already been found guilty of breaking and been punished for BUT for allegedly hiding some payments from ADUG to Etihad which is evidenced by the phrase "his highness" in a stolen and out of context email. Payments which didn't cause us to escape punishment for rules we broke? Payments which if we had made would have potentially caused those sponsorship deals to be classed as related parties and subject to fair value tests which would have only still meant we failed FFP?

But if this is the case then haven't we committed an actual criminal offence? By not disclosing a related party transaction? Or is the payment immaterial because Mansour is not a related party to Etihad?

 

[remember arthur mann]

Similarity is uncanny !