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

[kaz7]

Yes the conspiracy nutter hired by Manchester City Football Club in 2010 that eventually led to the removal of certain refs from our games and refs suddenly leaving the profession in 2012.

Why are we not that again now?

 

[squirtyflower]

Why are we not that again now?

According to his blog he said he wouldn’t work with them until they sorted out some of their internal security issues

 

[kaz7]

According to his blog he said he wouldn’t work with them until they sorted out some of their internal security issues

Ta

 

[keith's curle]

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]

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.

 

[GornikDaze]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[KS55]

Makes far more sense than sponsoring United.

There you go!

 

[SilverFox2]

Makes far more sense than Chevrolet, who don't sell cars in Europe anymore, sponsoring United.

Hi PB, great to see you back on the Forum,

I am tempted to infer that some sort of deal could be done between our Chinese owner and Etihad Airlines that benefitted both parties especially after the TC fiasco pre season which left Etihad being the eventual team carrier into China.

 

[nmc]

There you go!

United’s next sponsor will no doubt be Eastern European- to reflect where they spend Thursdays - although the Europa League is now an aspiration for them.

 

[petrusha]

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.

I'm in the middle of a particularly hectic and difficult day at work so don't have time to look now. And I may be wrong anyway, of course. But from memory, there was something in the Der Spiegel stuff that quoted an email purporting to state a total Etihad sponsorship figure of £ X (I can't remember the precise figures). On the next line, a figure of £ Y was noted against Etihad's name and below that, a figure (significantly larger than £ Y) of £ Z against ADUG's.

IIRC, Der Spiegel somewhat disingenuously implied that this more or less had us bang to rights and proved that ADUG itself was to provide the cash direct, which would be a disguised shareholder investment in breach of FFP. Yet the interpretation would be equally viable that ADUG was to procure the funds from elsewhere. Indeed, given that (as PB said above) information is in the public domain that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council part-funded this sponsorship in the past, this is surely the more likely turn of events. And that basically amounts to a shareholder opting to fund an obligation of a business it owns, which is perfectly legitimate and happens all the time in the corporate world for all kinds of reasons.

If ADEC paying the lion's share of the sponsorship is what happened, there might be certain corporate law, accounting and tax ramifications in the UAE, but something tells me they'd probably be OK on that score. And it would be irrelevant in terms of FFP compliance so would be none of UEFA's business.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Looking at the state of United and Arsenal, you can see exactly what they feared from City. If this attempt to hobble us fails, they are in deep, deep shit.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If they lose on Sunday, they would go into the bottom 3 if:

• Norwich beat them 3-0 (or more);
• Brighton & Everton draw 2-2;
  
• Newcastle beat Wolves;
• Southampton beat Leicester.

 

[nmc]

Looking at the state of United and Arsenal, you can see exactly what they feared from City. If this attempt to hobble us fails, they are in deep, deep shit.

These 2 dinosaurs still haven’t come to terms with the fact that they can no longer bully every other club in the league and simply help themselves to all the best players. I suspect (and hope) things will get an awful lot worse for Arsenal and United before they get better. The likes of Leicester and Wolves have better footballing models, better managers and access to the kind of funds that mean they can certainly match United and Arsenal in the short term. In 5 years time the likes of City and Liverpool will be in mother stratosphere to united and Arsenal... then see them moan.

 

[SilverFox2]

Looking at the state of United and Arsenal, you can see exactly what they feared from City. If this attempt to hobble us fails, they are in deep, deep shit.

Even worse than they predicted because other teams around them have also overtaken them.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Even worse than they predicted because other teams around them have also overtaken them.

In my view that's "fox in the hen-house" syndrome. All is fine and dandy with the fattest fowl ruling the roost until the fox gets in and then, it's headless chicken time.

These clubs have never had to compete properly. Just show up and the money rolls in. Now they haven't got a clue how to react and properly managed clubs can overtake them. In fairness to Liverpool, in their limited way, they have risen to the challenge. Spend a lot of money getting a solid team with solid players, play a consistent, if not particularly attractive game, and aim to be the best of the rest and hope we either slip up, don't get "the rub of the green" at crucial moments or they can introduce rules to remove us.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I'm in the middle of a particularly hectic and difficult day at work so don't have time to look now. And I may be wrong anyway, of course. But from memory, there was something in the Der Spiegel stuff that quoted an email purporting to state a total Etihad sponsorship figure of £ X (I can't remember the precise figures). On the next line, a figure of £ Y was noted against Etihad's name and below that, a figure (significantly larger than £ Y) of £ Z against ADUG's.

IIRC, Der Spiegel somewhat disingenuously implied that this more or less had us bang to rights and proved that ADUG itself was to provide the cash direct, which would be a disguised shareholder investment in breach of FFP. Yet the interpretation would be equally viable that ADUG was to procure the funds from elsewhere. Indeed, given that (as PB said above) information is in the public domain that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council part-funded this sponsorship in the past, this is surely the more likely turn of events. And that basically amounts to a shareholder opting to fund an obligation of a business it owns, which is perfectly legitimate and happens all the time in the corporate world for all kinds of reasons.

If ADEC paying the lion's share of the sponsorship is what happened, there might be certain corporate law, accounting and tax ramifications in the UAE, but something tells me they'd probably be OK on that score. And it would be irrelevant in terms of FFP compliance so would be none of UEFA's business.

This is from Der Spiegel:
"That money is then "routed through the partners and they then forward onto us," wrote Finance Director Andrew Widdowson in an email. That, at least, is how things were done in 2015: At the time, the deal with Etihad was bringing in 67.5 million pounds annually. But Chief Financial Officer Chumillas emphasized in an email to Pearce: "Please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG."

This from Reuters:

In an August 2013 email, Jorge Chumillas, then chief financial officer at City Football Group, the company through which Sheikh Mansour controls Manchester City Football
Club (MCFC), asked Pearce about the arrangement by which money flowed through Etihad, an airline owned by the Abu Dhabi government
"I need to understand the mechanism by which additional sponsorship flows through ADUG.
Is it ADUG Shareholder->ADUG->Etihad->MCFC?
Or is it rather ADUG Shareholder->Etihad->MCFC?," Chunillas wrote.

 

[Jordie]

If they lose on Sunday, they would go into the bottom 3 if:

• Norwich beat them 3-0 (or more);
• Brighton & Everton draw 2-2;
  
• Newcastle beat Wolves;
• Southampton beat Leicester.

That's a lot of 'ifs', and would certainly damage our 'SOO' campaign if they come in ;-)