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

[Bazzmand Show]

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?

Isn't this the problem? That we were not cooperative, that should be pretty easy to prove?

 

[blueparrot]

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.

I agree although the current format isn't what we have been banned under, we have been banned under the previous format. The current format allows , with permission, new owner investment. At least I think it does.

 

[mixer]

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

Its addictive shite though " I just need another FFP hit"

 

[OrigamiNinja]

Is exactly what one of our points should hopefully be

Bayern being just one

A quick Google search shows that Adidas own 9% of Bayern and also pay them approx £50m per annum for kit sponsorship. All perfectly fine according to UEFA.

 

[Nails]

A poorly researched journalist?

Some are being far too kind. He has chosen to lift Prestwich Blue's information and present it as his own, ignoring the relevancy and facts to maintain his ongoing narrative.

He's not a journalist. He's a chiseler.

An absolute disgrace to the profession.

Fucking hell, you're right. That is just embarrassing for Conn.

 

[Ban-jani]

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?

Yes.

I want them all ruined.

 

[Marvin]

I was watching Prestwich Blue on a You Tube video yesterday and he repeated a point I had heard before, but made it a lot stronger...



(1 min 35 secs) PB reports that Omar Berrada, City's chief operating officer told him that Ceferin was trying to negotiate with City hoping to get City to accept a small fine. City refused.

PB went on to ask where that puts the primacy of UEFA's so called evidence based Adjudicatory Chamber? How can an organisation lurch from one sentence to another. They should follow their own dispute resolution rules. That does not appear to have been the case.

I think it's obvious why City rejected Ceferin's offer. They are confident that the CAS will throw out UEFA's case. PB was not so forthright.

Clearly though if City were made an offer by Ceferin and turned it down the implication is that we are very confident in the strength of our argument.

 

[George Hannah]

Aye, allegedly is a magical word for journalists.

they don't even have to bother with that these days - "An accused perpetrator is one whose guilt is not yet established, so it is redundant to speak of an “alleged accused.”

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

He's wafty

I thought Matthew Syed was 'Wafty' ?

 

[nmc]

If the stuff on Twitter is true this looks increasingly like a repeat of the PSG case with UEFA saying that our sponsorship values are overstated. I thought our sponsorships were broadly in line with those of the other large clubs in the PL and certainly far behind where PSGs ended up. This increasingly looks like a charge brought in anger rather than on the basis of facts. Can’t see how PSG can get waved through and we don’t. The Rags get far more from Chevrolet than we do from Etihad. You can’t buy a Chevrolet car in Europe and the Rags are not in the CL so how can theirs be justified as more valuable than ours? I’m assuming City will have had a number of consultants objectively valuing our sponsorship deals.

 

[bumbleblue]

I thought Matthew Syed was 'Wafty' ?

Whafty Cranker?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I thought Matthew Syed was 'Wafty' ?

He's Whiff-Wafty....

 

[Centurions]

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?

I seem to remember reading awhile back that UEFA turned up at a meeting and we didn't have the requested information to hand. Perhaps it was a request for something that we just didn't wish to share for confidentiality reasons or the information requested wasn't ours to share? The 200 pages we submitted were passed on fairly late in the process if I recall, and of course UEFA were rushing to beat the 5 year deadline. I'd presume that that was UEFA's problem and not ours?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

That's exactlyvmy understanding as well. If you read the emails one way (as Der Spiegel) intended then you'd come to the view that ADUG paid the balance ofvthe Etihad money.

 

[George Hannah]

courtesy of 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:

 

[GaudinoMotors]

@Ric Looks like someone else got your gig mate. Good piece to be fair, the comments section doesnt agree though. Oh why oh why couldn't the Shiekh have waited a 100 years to bring us success Haha Deluded some of the Red Brigade, did I say some? I meant most

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...N-VIEW-UEFA-cartel-run-protect-interests.html

Saw that 100 yr quote - hilarious. They should have refused the Littlewoods Money.

We should still be playing in woolen shirts, with heavy brown leather caseys.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I was watching Prestwich Blue on a You Tube video yesterday and he repeated a point I had heard before, but made it a lot stronger...

PB reports that Omar Berrada, City's chief operating officer told him that Ceferin was trying to negotiate with City hoping to get City to accept a small fine. City refused.

PB went on to ask where that puts the primacy of UEFA's so called evidence based Adjudicatory Chamber? How can an organisation lurch from one sentence to another. They should follow their own dispute resolution rules. That does not appear to have been the case.

I think it's obvious why City rejected Ceferin's offer. They are confident that the CAS will throw out UEFA's case.

So, what you're saying is we have done the very worst thing in the history of UEFA and deserve the biggest punishment and a fine, but if we give them a bit of money it'll go away and it'll be forgotten? Isn't that attempted extortion?

extortion
/ɪkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n,ɛkˈstɔːʃ(ə)n/

noun

1. the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

That's my understanding. If you read the emails one way (as Der Spiegel undoubtedly intended) you'd get the impression of money being shovelled around to disguise the fact that ADUG were directly paying the majority of the Etihad deal.

But when you understand that the ADEC was finding that deal, that 'HH' is not Sheikh Mansour and that City were asking for ADUG money to be kept separate from Etihad remittances then you could read thst in a very different light, namely that ADEC were sending money direct to ADUG but that City demanded ADUG split that up and send the appropriate funds via the sponsoring parties.

So on one hand there's an impression that City are breaking the rules while on the other that City are desperate to be seen not to be breaking the rules. And that's from the same emails but with a bit of context about who funded the Etihad deal.

 

[maurizio]

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?

Maybe they asked for the full email chains from our computers that were referred to in the Der Spiegel articles. As they were hacked we could have refused and instead produced other evidence that the moneys that we received from our sponsors were as stated, so any reading of wrongdoing in the emails are irrelevant. They could have a hard time proving the intent and whether they are genuine without access to our computers and regard this as non-coperative? Just a guess. Our evidence is not the evidence that they wanted.

 

[blueparrot]

That's exactlyvmy understanding as well. If you read the emails one way (as Der Spiegel) intended then you'd come to the view that ADUG paid the balance ofvthe Etihad money.

From what you've said I as I understand it Etihad received money from the Abu Dhabi executive to cover it's sponsorship commitments, is that just our sponsorship or all Etihad sponsorship commitments? If it's more than just ours then surely we can point to it being how Etihad were operating with state backing, and wasn't unique to just City.