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

[Shaelumstash]

I mean this in all sincerity mate, the likes of yourself and @Didsbury Dave were the beacons of sanity back then.

hahaha!

 

[M18CTID]

When do tickets for the CAS hearing go on sale?

Ticket info just gone up on the club website now - I'll be surprised if this drops below 20,000 points:

All the ticketing information you need to know for our trip to Switzerland........

CAS hearing

Manchester City v UEFA
Venue: Neutral (Lausanne, Switzerland)
Date and kick-off time: TBA

The Club has received an allocation of 1,244 tickets priced as follows:

Season Ticket Holders & Members

Adult 52 CHF

Over 65 30 CHF

Under 21 30 CHF

Under 17 15 CHF

The Club would like to remind supporters that it advises against booking travel or accommodation for fixtures until they secure a ticket. Fixture dates and kick-off times can change at any time.

The following groups will receive an allocation of tickets for this match: Supporters, Seasonal Hospitality Supporters, Football Management, Players, Club Partners and the MCFC Supporters Club.

QUALIFYING SALES CRITERIA

Subject to availability, tickets will be available online at www.mancity.com/tickets, by telephone on +44 (0)161 444 1894 (option 1) and in-person at the Ticket Office located in the City Store at the Etihad Stadium.

• Cityzens with a 2019/20 Platinum, Gold or 93:20 Seasoncard with 24,000 or more ticket points who are registered on the CL Cup Scheme - Friday 28 February at 9am.
• Cityzens with a 2019/20 Platinum, Gold or 93:20 Seasoncard with 23,000 or more ticket points who are registered on the CL Cup Scheme – Friday 28 February at 12noon.
• Cityzens with a 2019/20 Platinum, Gold or 93:20 Seasoncard with 22,000 or more ticket points who are registered on the CL Cup Scheme – Friday 28 February at 3pm.
• Cityzens with a 2019/20 Platinum, Gold or 93:20 Seasoncard with 21,000 or more ticket points who are registered on the CL Cup Scheme – Monday 02 March at 9am.
• Cityzens with a 2019/20 Platinum, Gold or 93:20 Seasoncard with 20,000 or more ticket points who are registered on the CL Cup Scheme – Monday 02 March at 12noon
• Should any tickets remain; further selling criteria will be announced on the website.

TICKET POINTS

Ticket points are no longer awarded for away fixtures. For more information on ticket points click here.

COLLECT IN DESTINATION

Supporters are advised that Collect In Destination WILL be in operation for this fixture. Supporters will be advised if they have been selected to collect their tickets no later than 5 days before. For those supporters who are (un)fortunate to have been selected, they will have to not only provide photo ID in the form of a passport but will also have to agree to be the meat in the Javier Tebas/David Gill sandwich before receiving their tickets.

 

[blueinsa]

hahaha!

 

[Marvin]

Yes, there's an odd contradiction at the heart of the matter. UEFA sources seem to be briefing their friendly journalists (Panja and the like) that they're confident of CAS upholding their position. Yet MCFC continue to maintain that the club has "irrefutable evidence" to back up its claims that there are no grounds for punishment. Logic dictates that one of these propositions must be wrong.

Now, I can't stress strongly enough that what follows in this post is absolute speculation. It's just my best guess at the kind of scenario which might give rise to the oddity described in the preceding paragraph.

If there's an element of subjectivity, then in the absence of further information I can only think that it must be around the definition of a "related party". Of course I could be completely wrong here and this is purely speculation on my part, but maybe City are continuing to maintain that the Abu Dhabi sponsors aren't related parties, while UEFA are claiming that they entered into a settlement agreement in which that proposition wasn't challenged in the absence of the newly information about Abu Dhabi state funding of our sponsorships that would have altered their view on that topic. It may (or may not) be that the settlement agreement contains provisions that allow UEFA to reopen matters if they consider themselves not to have been provided with all relevant information at the time, and they regard the information about AD state subsidy of the sponsorships as meeting that criterion.

Interestingly, Panja and his boss at the NYT were tweeting yesterday about the possibility of some kind of settlement, while Tony Evans tweeted an article he'd written (which I confess to not having read) that seemed to purport to urge the parties to get together and sort things out. These journalists have in the past relayed material ostensibly sourced by people who are connected with the case and certainly aren't in the MCFC camp. I wonder whether this might point towards UEFA hoping for a settlement before matters reach CAS.

In this hypothetical event, I'd actually be tempted as long as they'd agree to a suspended ban and reduced fine, together with a statement that any breaches were technical and entailed no intention to deceive UEFA. Even if our case is relatively strong, litigation and arbitration can always be a lottery to some extent and it's invariably better to avoid it if you can.

The prospect of the club's majority shareholder and our Abu Dhabi stakeholders accepting a settlement on the terms that I would is, in my uninformed view, negligible. Remember that UEFA have found us guilty of inflating sponsorships and, if that's true, it means the club's audited accounts are inaccurate. That's a big accusation to throw at a business, because it brings into question the honesty and good faith of those running it as well as of the auditors. For that reason, in my opinion only total exoneration is likely to be seen as acceptable in the UAE.

What do you make of suggestions that UEFA via Ceferin were trying to negotiate a minor sanction? It seems very reliable information.

I also think City should have a good feel on CAS's outcome given that we have been through the process and should know their opinions even if they have not been fully documented.

 

[razman]

Respect Souness there !

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Respect Souness there !

He just doesn't want to be sleeping on the couch.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I’m with you on the stress side, I’m defending City every way I look at the moment and what comes across is rival,fans haven’t a clue what is actually going on, they just see the cheat headlines, UEFA May have played a blinder if it all gets thrown out especially on a technicality then they can say they’ve done their job and we were guilty, shit sticks, we will be forever labelled that and it would hurt us in the long run, or UEFA shot themselves in the foot if we are exonerated and go to court to rip them a new one, hoping it’s the latter and the arrogance of UEFA has screwed they up. I think a huge change will come after this either way as everyone is now seeing this played out worldwide in the press at just how corrupt and elitist UEFA are, there seems to be a groundswell of support for us, Christ even Talkshite are behind us!

.
I think its why uefa have gone nuclear on this punishment. They know the charge won't stick but the shit will. I don't even think they're bothered about getting us banned, the leaks and negative news have done enough

 

[Gordyola]

Great forensic analysis, no wonder journalists don't like seeing the kind of thing they should be doing themselves. One thing puzzled me - it states that Sheikh Mansour chairs the investment company which owns Etihad. I'd thought this was true of the other two smaller AD sponsors, but not Etihad or is he just quoting Conn's article which might well have made an error about this.

Think this might be an error, re Etihad and Sheikh Mansour Don't see any executive or board level or investment connection

Etihad is owned by the Abu Dhabi Government* can't see any executive or board level connection to Sheikh Mansour

*Etihad Aviation Group is the holding company since 2016

Etisalat is 40% public and 60% Emirates Investment Authority (EIA)

Sheikh Mansour is the chairman of EIA

The Emirates Investment Authority (EIA), an authority owned by the Federal Government, was established through Federal Decree Law No. 4 of 2007 as amended by Federal Decree Law No. 13 of 2009.
Its primary directive is to manage the sovereign wealth of the UAE by investing in a diversified portfolio of assets in key economic sectors and industries with the aim of delivering sustained financial gains for the UAE.

Mubadala Investment Company
100% owned by the UAE government founded in 2017
Sheikh Mansour is Vice Chairman
Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak is Managing Director and Group Chief Executive Officer of the Mubadala Investment Company.

So in summary Sheikh chairs 2 investment companies Aabar , former Cty sponsor, and EIA and Vice Chair of Mubadala neither have any investments in Etihad Airways or Etihad Airways Group from what I can see

 

[Lee won pen]

Respect Souness there !

Trevor Sinclair on TS this morning fully supporting City, believes it will be overturned....called the whole thing a stitch up driven by elitism in UEFA...what Liverpool did in hacking into City was far worse but swept under the carpet.

way to go Trevor!

 

[CC1]

Yes, there's an odd contradiction at the heart of the matter. UEFA sources seem to be briefing their friendly journalists (Panja and the like) that they're confident of CAS upholding their position. Yet MCFC continue to maintain that the club has "irrefutable evidence" to back up its claims that there are no grounds for punishment. Logic dictates that one of these propositions must be wrong.

Now, I can't stress strongly enough that what follows in this post is absolute speculation. It's just my best guess at the kind of scenario which might give rise to the oddity described in the preceding paragraph.

If there's an element of subjectivity, then in the absence of further information I can only think that it must be around the definition of a "related party". Of course I could be completely wrong here and this is purely speculation on my part, but maybe City are continuing to maintain that the Abu Dhabi sponsors aren't related parties, while UEFA are claiming that they entered into a settlement agreement in which that proposition wasn't challenged in the absence of the newly information about Abu Dhabi state funding of our sponsorships that would have altered their view on that topic. It may (or may not) be that the settlement agreement contains provisions that allow UEFA to reopen matters if they consider themselves not to have been provided with all relevant information at the time, and they regard the information about AD state subsidy of the sponsorships as meeting that criterion.

Interestingly, Panja and his boss at the NYT were tweeting yesterday about the possibility of some kind of settlement, while Tony Evans tweeted an article he'd written (which I confess to not having read) that seemed to purport to urge the parties to get together and sort things out. These journalists have in the past relayed material ostensibly sourced by people who are connected with the case and certainly aren't in the MCFC camp. I wonder whether this might point towards UEFA hoping for a settlement before matters reach CAS.

In this hypothetical event, I'd actually be tempted as long as they'd agree to a suspended ban and reduced fine, together with a statement that any breaches were technical and entailed no intention to deceive UEFA. Even if our case is relatively strong, litigation and arbitration can always be a lottery to some extent and it's invariably better to avoid it if you can.

The prospect of the club's majority shareholder and our Abu Dhabi stakeholders accepting a settlement on the terms that I would is, in my uninformed view, negligible. Remember that UEFA have found us guilty of inflating sponsorships and, if that's true, it means the club's audited accounts are inaccurate. That's a big accusation to throw at a business, because it brings into question the honesty and good faith of those running it as well as of the auditors. For that reason, in my opinion only total exoneration is likely to be seen as acceptable in the UAE.

To sum up then, nobody outside MCFC Boardroom knows anything at the moment. It’s all speculation but sadly, I think UEFA have both the funds & general support (albeit selfish & corrupt support) to hammer us. We are being punished out of spite for a supposed wrongdoing which includes improving football; providing exciting & innovative football; putting mega improvements in place for the local community & breaking up the cartel.

I don’t think all the lawyers in the world will overturn this decision because the system is corrupt.

sorry to sound so down but as you have said above, after decades of thin & thinner, we fans just wanted to enjoy our success but jealousy & fraud have worked hand in hand to rob us.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Its as if regardless of CAS City intend to go to a court of law once CAS has finished

Well UEFA have broken the "Pinch" agreement they came to with us in 2014 that was supposed to draw a line under the whole affair, so it would be no surprise to me if we were to go to a Swiss court over that. Especially as UEFA went through our sponsorship arrangements in fine detail between 2012-2014.

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

I’m with you on the stress side, I’m defending City every way I look at the moment and what comes across is rival,fans haven’t a clue what is actually going on, they just see the cheat headlines, UEFA May have played a blinder if it all gets thrown out especially on a technicality then they can say they’ve done their job and we were guilty, shit sticks, we will be forever labelled that and it would hurt us in the long run, or UEFA shot themselves in the foot if we are exonerated and go to court to rip them a new one, hoping it’s the latter and the arrogance of UEFA has screwed they up. I think a huge change will come after this either way as everyone is now seeing this played out worldwide in the press at just how corrupt and elitist UEFA are, there seems to be a groundswell of support for us, Christ even Talkshite are behind us!

Every fan of the other 87 league clubs outside of the G14 should be behind us. Whatever the outcome of this case, their chances of ever being able to compete at the top level will be blown wide open or locked away forever. This is about opening competition for all teams, not just between City and UEFA.

We lose this and those fans can scoff in the name of bantz for a few days and then realise that any remote chance of ever realising their football dreams will be gone forever.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yes, there's an odd contradiction at the heart of the matter. UEFA sources seem to be briefing their friendly journalists (Panja and the like) that they're confident of CAS upholding their position. Yet MCFC continue to maintain that the club has "irrefutable evidence" to back up its claims that there are no grounds for punishment. Logic dictates that one of these propositions must be wrong.

Now, I can't stress strongly enough that what follows in this post is absolute speculation. It's just my best guess at the kind of scenario which might give rise to the oddity described in the preceding paragraph.

If there's an element of subjectivity, then in the absence of further information I can only think that it must be around the definition of a "related party". Of course I could be completely wrong here and this is purely speculation on my part, but maybe City are continuing to maintain that the Abu Dhabi sponsors aren't related parties, while UEFA are claiming that they entered into a settlement agreement in which that proposition wasn't challenged in the absence of the newly information about Abu Dhabi state funding of our sponsorships that would have altered their view on that topic. It may (or may not) be that the settlement agreement contains provisions that allow UEFA to reopen matters if they consider themselves not to have been provided with all relevant information at the time, and they regard the information about AD state subsidy of the sponsorships as meeting that criterion.

Interestingly, Panja and his boss at the NYT were tweeting yesterday about the possibility of some kind of settlement, while Tony Evans tweeted an article he'd written (which I confess to not having read) that seemed to purport to urge the parties to get together and sort things out. These journalists have in the past relayed material ostensibly sourced by people who are connected with the case and certainly aren't in the MCFC camp. I wonder whether this might point towards UEFA hoping for a settlement before matters reach CAS.

In this hypothetical event, I'd actually be tempted as long as they'd agree to a suspended ban and reduced fine, together with a statement that any breaches were technical and entailed no intention to deceive UEFA. Even if our case is relatively strong, litigation and arbitration can always be a lottery to some extent and it's invariably better to avoid it if you can.

The prospect of the club's majority shareholder and our Abu Dhabi stakeholders accepting a settlement on the terms that I would is, in my uninformed view, negligible. Remember that UEFA have found us guilty of inflating sponsorships and, if that's true, it means the club's audited accounts are inaccurate. That's a big accusation to throw at a business, because it brings into question the honesty and good faith of those running it as well as of the auditors. For that reason, in my opinion only total exoneration is likely to be seen as acceptable in the UAE.

Great post and it pretty well reflects my own thinking.

At the risk of getting boring and without knowledge of the details of what exactly we're charged with, my opinion is that we should agree with UEFA that solely for the purposes of FFP Etihad are a related party although we and our auditors don't accept they are under IAS 24.

In return they will agree that their sponsorship represents fair value for the period under review and that the source of funds is therefore irrelevant. They'd found that hard to disagree with, with Leterme having seemingly signed off Qatar's PSG sponsorship at €100m. QED on that score.

That might not be the only issue they're looking at of course but one thing I'd kind of forgotten is that I believe all this relates to stuff we did in the 2012/13 financial year, when we thought we had a chance of escaping punishment under the provisions of Annex XI S2. So we were stuffing the accounts as much as we could , which I explained to George Hannah a couple of days ago was a bit cheeky but probably not technically illegal.

Had UEFA been consistent on how clubs needed to do the relevant calculations then we probably wouldn't have thought about doing that. But they weren't and gave us every encouragement to carry on down the path we did, bringing forward partnership remittances and getting costs off the City books where possible. Had UEFA introduced its rules on controlled funding earlier, we wouldn't have needed to do that.

So while it sounds a bit dramatic, it's possible we could put forward some sort of "entrapment" argument, that UEFA deliberately led us on, knowing full well they were going to change the rules to those that could have given us a much better chance of achieving a controlled break-even position.

 

[blueinsa]

Respect Souness there !

I wonder who the presenter supports?

Utd or Liverpool?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Trevor Sinclair on TS this morning fully supporting City, believes it will be overturned....called the whole thing a stitch up driven by elitism in UEFA...what Liverpool did in hacking into City was far worse but swept under the carpet.

way to go Trevor!

He's getting absolutely hammered for it. Total twitter pile on.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Respect Souness there !

I'm going to add, who else thinks that presenter is a rag or dipper. What a twat. Three good pundits there and he kept bringing it back to "City broke the rules" (which as yet is still being challenged) and what they do in the community is not relevant. It is nice to see and hear more pundits recognising what we have been saying for 10 years, that FFP is about protecting the status quo. The world is catching on.

I would have liked Souness to name Liverpool as one of those clubs but understand why he stuck to "5 or 6". He means 6.

 

[razman]

sam plugging his old coloum

 

[KS55]

Ticket info just gone up on the club website now - I'll be surprised if this drops below 20,000 points:

I would just like to say that the Tebas/Gill sandwich is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on the internet. Send it to Pornhub.

 

[give it to gordon]

Respect Souness there !

I know its early days but does it feel like some of the press/media beginning to change their view on us ?

 

[Rolee]

I wonder who the presenter supports?

Utd or Liverpool?

Celtic