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

[MillionMilesAway]

Ordinarily you’d be right but I suspect these fuckers know they haven’t got much of a case so they are grandstanding hoping to inflict as much damage as they can on our business and our brand in the hope CAS simply overturn it on a technicality and the stigma will stick and they can plan their next attack.

My first thought was that they've gone all-in, as there's nothing to lose.
And yes, I agree with you that the smear is in, and hacks will always now describe City as "banned for two years".

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

That quote & I didn't watch him or the attached video suggests well win due to them being incompetent rather than us being in the right.

FFP is/will be a hindrance to Salford so he's got interests.

He's admitted as much.

 

[nmc]

I'd not really looked at the argument before, but Parisian put it brilliantly last night.

Does UEFA seriously consider City would only be able to charge £8m per annum for the sponsoring of our shirt, stadium and training campus?

And the next time someone you hear or know states we have been inflating our sponsorship, kindly tell them to fuck off in the general above pertinent point.

UEFA was already on record as stating the Etihad deal was fair value (ten years ago) nor a related party.

So which is it, we are inflating sponsorship that is deemed fair value, or the Etihad cash is being topped up by a non-related party!

The Etihad deal is being topped up by the airlines owner ! It’s shareholders in effect.

 

[argyle]

I catch up on today's posts and then there's another 4 pages to catch up...

 

[nmc]

I still can't work out why it took 6 months before CAS decided City's complaint should be rejected because it could be addressed by the Adjudicatory Chamber after all. The damage was already done, the probity of the Investigatory stage was destroyed by fundamental confidentiality requirements being repeatedly breached by Leterme. In such circumstances UEFA's entire sanction process was openly undermined and exposed as a wholly corrupt and racist attack on us.

And that’s good because we can now target that incompetence in our appeal.

 

[Len Rum]

As a qualified and very experienced accountant, I'd say you are entirely wrong: it makes no difference how it was routed (so long as it wasn't illegal) that's just a matter of substance over form. We don't know if UEFA have been idiotic enough to let such a thing confuse them as to the true source of the money and that is an issue because we currently have problem. if the routing of money is a problem it can be solved by providing appropriate evidence.
We are merely speculating though on what has happened; although it does seem to be the case that the EC have been funding Etihad's sponsorship if City and therefore, as an expedient, could quite legitimately have sent the cash via ADUG as a short-cut.
So long as Mansour was not funneling his money through Etihad to City and disguising investment as sponsorship, we have not broken FFP rules as far as I can see.
If it is Mansour's money, we have to go and fight FFP unless we can have UEFA's hacked evidence dismissed as inadmissible.

I accept we may have done it as a technicality to facilitate the transfer of the monies but in doing so we may have dropped a bollock.
You say it makes 'no difference how it was routed'.
Is there anything in FFP that says this and if not then I go back to base and say that if it came through ADUG it came through a related party and that is entirely relevant as that is the link to our owners .
If it comes through a bank or clearing house then no problem - no link to the owners.

 

[manimanc]

So when we are cleared of all wrong doings, where does this leave us going forward with UEFA and the gutter press. Do we try and break UEFA apart if all our evidence stacks towards us heavily in being able to do so? And will every single journo that has spouted bile and vitriol about the whole issue offer public apologies? Or do we screw them all as well?

Screw the press too, apart from Martin Samuel every other journalist has gleefully kicked us in the bollocks, I'd be throwing libel at them like confetti and take the ****s down.

 

[nmc]

He and his poxy club gladly took City's 'financially doped' money though. The wizened senile old hypocrite.

Wenger est un ****

 

[bumbleblue]

I wonder what the time line is.. when might we hear if they have suspended the ban , or not, pending the cas judgement?

 

[KS55]

As a qualified and very experienced accountant, I'd say you are entirely wrong: it makes no difference how it was routed (so long as it wasn't illegal) that's just a matter of substance over form. We don't know if UEFA have been idiotic enough to let such a thing confuse them as to the true source of the money and that is an issue because we currently have problem. if the routing of money is a problem it can be solved by providing appropriate evidence.

We are merely speculating though on what has happened; although it does seem to be the case that the EC have been funding Etihad's sponsorship if City and therefore, as an expedient, could quite legitimately have sent the cash via ADUG as a short-cut.

So long as Mansour was not funneling his money through Etihad to City and disguising investment as sponsorship, we have not broken FFP rules as far as I can see.

If it is Mansour's money, we have to go and fight FFP unless we can have UEFA's hacked evidence dismissed as inadmissible.

Thanks for that. Optimism grows.

 

[mat]

Arsene is such a bitter old queen nowadays. Using our club to project his issues with the Arsenal board.

 

[George Hannah]

Screw the press too, apart from Martin Samuel every other journalist has gleefully kicked us in the bollocks, I'd be throwing libel at them like confetti and take the ****s down.

Untouchable, lies are their stock in trade and the more brazen the more profitable.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

City received an unprecedented punishment because the club refused to cooperate with the investigation: City assert that the club submitted 200 pages of irrefutable evidence which the IC didn't even read. Surely we have evidence of when these 200 pages were submitted? And also of no evidence of an opportunity to present it? Shouldn't this be enough for CAS?

 

[VOOMER]

So when we are cleared of all wrong doings, where does this leave us going forward with UEFA and the gutter press. Do we try and break UEFA apart if all our evidence stacks towards us heavily in being able to do so? And will every single journo that has spouted bile and vitriol about the whole issue offer public apologies? Or do we screw them all as well?

As it unfolds there will be a very different narrative from 4 day's ago. This is the beginning of the end of FFP in its current format. There is no chance of anyone else buying a Newcastle, Wolves, or Sheffield Utd under the current format. Only morons would want FFP in its current format.

 

[VOOMER]

Format

 

[Fame Monster]

E. Related party, related party transactions and fair value of related party transactions 1. A related party is a person or entity that is related to the entity that is preparing its financial statements (the ‘reporting entity’). 2. A person or a close member of that person’s family is related to a reporting entity if that person: a) has control or joint control over the reporting entity; b) has significant influence over the reporting entity; or c) is a member of the key management personnel of the reporting entity or of a parent of the reporting entity. 3. An entity is related to a reporting entity if any of the following conditions apply: a) The entity and the reporting entity are members of the same group (which means that each parent, subsidiary and fellow subsidiary is related to the others); b) One entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member); c) Both entities are joint ventures of the same third party; d) One entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity; e) The entity is a post-employment benefit plan for the benefit of employees of either the reporting entity or an entity related to the reporting entity. If the reporting entity is itself such a plan, the sponsoring employers are also related to the reporting entity; f) The entity is controlled or jointly controlled by a person identified in paragraph 2; or g) A person identified in paragraph 2(a) has significant influence over the entity or is a member of the key management personnel of the entity (or of a parent of the entity). ENG_20120521_CLFFP 2012_en_final.indd 87 21.05.12 17:36 84 4. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the following definitions apply: a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner. b) Control is the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an entity so as to obtain benefits from its activities. c) A joint venture is a contractual arrangement whereby two or more parties undertake an economic activity that is subject to joint control. d) Joint control is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an economic activity, and exists only when the strategic financial and operating decisions relating to the activity require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control (the venturers). e) Key management personnel are those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or otherwise) of that entity. f) Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity, but is not control over those policies. Significant influence may be gained by share ownership, statute or agreement. g) An associate is an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, over which the investor has significant influence and that is neither a subsidiary nor an interest in a joint venture. In the definition of a related party, an associate includes subsidiaries of the associate and a joint venture includes subsidiaries of the joint venture.
Therefore, for example, an associate's subsidiary and the investor that has significant influence over the associate are related to each other. 5. In considering each possible related party relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. The following are not related parties: a) Two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key management personnel in common or because a member of key management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other entity. b) Two venturers simply because they share joint control over a joint venture. c) Providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an 85 entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or participate in its decision-making process). d) A customer, supplier, franchisor, distributor or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business, simply by virtue of the resulting economic dependence. 6. A related party transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged (disclosure requirements in respect of related parties and related party transactions are set out in Annex VI). 7. A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party relationship. ENG_20120521_CLFFP 2012_en_final.indd 88 21.05.12 17:36 84 4. With reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the following definitions apply: a) Close members of the family of a person are those family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by, that individual in their dealings with the entity. They may include that person’s children and spouse or domestic partner, children of that person’s spouse or domestic partner, and dependants of that person or that person’s spouse or domestic partner. b) Control is the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an entity so as to obtain benefits from its activities. c) A joint venture is a contractual arrangement whereby two or more parties undertake an economic activity that is subject to joint control. d) Joint control is the contractually agreed sharing of control over an economic activity, and exists only when the strategic financial and operating decisions relating to the activity require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control (the venturers). e) Key management personnel are those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the entity, directly or indirectly, including any director (whether executive or otherwise) of that entity. f) Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity, but is not control over those policies. Significant influence may be gained by share ownership, statute or agreement. g) An associate is an entity, including an unincorporated entity such as a partnership, over which the investor has significant influence and that is neither a subsidiary nor an interest in a joint venture. In the definition of a related party, an associate includes subsidiaries of the associate and a joint venture includes subsidiaries of the joint venture. Therefore, for example, an associate's subsidiary and the investor that has significant influence over the associate are related to each other. 5. In considering each possible related party relationship, attention is directed to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. The following are not related parties: a) Two entities simply because they have a director or other member of key management personnel in common or because a member of key management personnel of one entity has significant influence over the other entity. b) Two venturers simply because they share joint control over a joint venture. c) Providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an 85 entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or participate in its decision-making process). d) A customer, supplier, franchisor, distributor or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business, simply by virtue of the resulting economic dependence. 6. A related party transaction is a transfer of resources, services or obligations between related parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged (disclosure requirements in respect of related parties and related party transactions are set out in Annex VI). 7. A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party relationship

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf
If anyone can be arsed looking at it (I'm working at the minute so will have a read later), I'm pretty sure this is the relevant rule:

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

So when we are cleared of all wrong doings, where does this leave us going forward with UEFA and the gutter press. Do we try and break UEFA apart if all our evidence stacks towards us heavily in being able to do so? And will every single journo that has spouted bile and vitriol about the whole issue offer public apologies? Or do we screw them all as well?

If we're cleared then most journos will believe we have somehow got out of it by nefarious means, they won't be able to accept it, and will take every opportunity to report any negative aspect connected to the club, however tenuous. A bit like the last 10 years if truth be told.

 

[manimanc]

Untouchable, lies are their stock in trade and the more brazen the more profitable.

Aye, allegedly is a magical word for journalists.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Aye, allegedly is a magical word for journalists.

I like the old "{insert person} has told friends that ... blah, blah, blah". Very ingenious.

 

[George Hannah]

Let's be honest. We've been a bit shifty even if, in terms of FFP, we've stayed within the letter of the rules if not necessarily the spirit. But you could say the same or similar about UEFA. They've applied the letter even when it's against the spirit. And when it suited them, like with PSG's Qatar sponsorship, they played fast and loose.

When you say 'a bit shifty' - how did we step outside 'the spirit' of the rules?