Yes and no. It's more complicated than that.
If we can show, say, £50m coming in from Etihad for a year's sponsorship then that's fine, unless UEFA can prove some or all of that money came directly from ADUG. Even then, if Etihad is deemed to be a related party (which UEFA was seemingly trying to claim in 2014) and the sponsorship is deemed to be fair value, then it's completely irrelevant where the money came from. On the other hand, if Etihad isn't deemed to be a related party and UEFA can show some of that sponsorship came from ADUG, then that would class as disguised owner investment.
We know, with some degree of certainty, that Etihad only paid a minor part of the sponsorship out of their own pocket. The Der Spiegel articles that revealed that explicitly claimed that the additional money came from ADUG, which on the surface is pretty damning (if Etihad isn't a related party of course). However I've shown that the 'HH' referred to in the email is far more likely to have been Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the Crown Prince. I've also shown beyond any shadow of doubt that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, which MBZ heads, were funding the Etihad sponsorship, at least in 2010.
So to summarise:
- Is Etihad a related party? If yes, then if the sponsorship is 'fair value' it's fine, however it's funded. If no, then the source of funding could be crucial, if it's directly from ADUG. Even so, if City can show that money originally came from ADEC then we've done nothing wrong.
- Were Aabar & Etisalat related parties? If so, and the sponsorships weren't deemed fair value, then the excess should have been subtracted from relevant income. But UEFA didn't do that, even knowing the value of the sponsorships at the time, if not the source of funding.
- UEFA seemingly tried to argue that all three were related parties in 2014 and that the sponsorship from the two other companies were overvalued. We didn't accept that they were related parties (and we had good grounds not to). We did agree not to increase the smaller two though.
- UEFA would therefore have prove that Etihad (as well as Aabar & Etisalat) weren't related parties, which is directly opposed to their 2014 position that they were, and that the original source of any additional funding was ADUG and ADUG only.
Had those made the difference to us passing and failing FFP then we might be in trouble if they could prove it was disguised owner investment that made the difference. But it didn't. We failed anyway & were sanctioned (and that's another story altogether, as I've said).
It's like the police clocking you speeding at 37 in a 30 limit and you accepting a speed awareness course, which you attend. Then they write to you and say that you were really doing 40 and they're going to summons you and you'll get 3 points.