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

[asahartford1]

Sheikh Mansour is probably bored now anyway.

Toys do not last forever

 

[BringBackSwales]

Haha. I'm fucking hilarious, rest assured!

A lot has changed since you were last on then

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Txiki is director of football, although I don't know his full remit I don't think he has much input on the FFP side (or does he?).

I suspect this has very little to do with Txiki. He gets his budgets and brings players in and keeps them. Very successfully too.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Will be interesting to see if he carries the can if the CAS appeal is unsuccessful, or whether Mansour and Khaldoon will keep faith in him regardless.

If Soriano goes hard not to see Txiki and Pep following suit.

 

[BillyShears]

A lot has changed since you were last on then

I was ahead of my time then. That's all.

 

[petrusha]

A two year ban will be catastrophic for the club. Both practically and in terms of the damage it will do to the club's reputation and the owners.

It will. But let's look at what we do know, i.e. information that is in the public domain:

1. We have a sponsorship contract with Etihad under which the sponsor is to receive shirt sponsorship rights plus naming rights to the stadium and area around it, including the training ground and the local light rail station.

2. That contract was accepted to have been entered into at a fair value for FFP purposes by the specialist valuers appointed by UEFA for the purpose (actually, IIRC, the neutral value was marginally below but by so little they didn't think it worth quibbling over).

3. We've performed our obligations under that fairly valued contract so as to provide Etihad with the benefits stated above.

4. Our audited accounts reflect that the monies paid under the contract were received from Etihad, as stipulated by the contract.

5. UEFA entered into a settlement agreement with MCFC in 2014 and signed off the club's compliance under a special reporting procedure in 2015 and 2016, which suggests they accepted all of the above.

We're accused of inflating sponsorship revenues under the Etihad deal. However, if it's true that Etihad has been subsidised in order to pay the full amount of the sponsorship fee, then the above suggests not that we're actually guilty of inflating the Etihad sponsorship but that people of influence in Abu Dhabi want Etihad to benefit from a sponsorship of the most successful team of the past decade in arguably the world's highest-profile domestic sporting competition in the world when its financial position wouldn't otherwise allow it to do so.

Now, all we know of UEFA's evidence that's prompted conclusions to the contrary was published as part of the Football Leaks materials. Those emails are clearly taken out of context and are open to interpretation, despite the way in which the media has universally presented them. And as published, they seem an extraordinarily flimsy basis on which to hand down the kind of punishment we've been hit with.

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

 

[BillyShears]

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

This is what it comes down to on both sides. I've got no idea what UEFA's reasoning is for the 2 year ban, and I've got no idea what City's defence will be. Therefore I'm not more confident of any one outcome than the other. A 2 year ban won't shock me and if they kick it out and say we did nothing wrong it won't shock me.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

It will. But let's look at what we do know, i.e. information that is in the public domain:

1. We have a sponsorship contract with Etihad under which the sponsor is to receive shirt sponsorship rights plus naming rights to the stadium and area around it, including the training ground and the local light rail station.

2. That contract was accepted to have been entered into at a fair value for FFP purposes by the specialist valuers appointed by UEFA for the purpose (actually, IIRC, the neutral value was marginally below but by so little they didn't think it worth quibbling over).

3. We've performed our obligations under that fairly valued contract so as to provide Etihad with the benefits stated above.

4. Our audited accounts reflect that the monies paid under the contract were received from Etihad, as stipulated by the contract.

5. UEFA entered into a settlement agreement with MCFC in 2014 and signed off the club's compliance under a special reporting procedure in 2015 and 2016, which suggests they accepted all of the above.

We're accused of inflating sponsorship revenues under the Etihad deal. However, if it's true that Etihad has been subsidised in order to pay the full amount of the sponsorship fee, then the above suggests not that we're actually guilty of inflating the Etihad sponsorship but that people of influence in Abu Dhabi want Etihad to benefit from a sponsorship of the most successful team of the past decade in arguably the world's highest-profile domestic sporting competition in the world when its financial position wouldn't otherwise allow it to do so.

Now, all we know of UEFA's evidence that's prompted conclusions to the contrary was published as part of the Football Leaks materials. Those emails are clearly taken out of context and are open to interpretation, despite the way in which the media has universally presented them. And as published, they seem an extraordinarily flimsy basis on which to hand down the kind of punishment we've been hit with.

For that reason, I keep thinking that UEFA must have more evidence against City than has so far been made public. But until we know whether they do and, if so, what it is, it's impossible for anyone to offer a genuinely authoritative view.

Your last paragraph is the worry as I don't see UEFA going this far on the off chance they might be able to make it stick.

Theories on this thread that it would suit UEFA to lose at CAS & that we have explosive evidence against cartel clubs seem like very unlikely wishful thinking too.

 

[iwasthere1968]

I m getting ever so slightly miffed with the Neville Chamberlain approach of some on this forum.
You cannot deal with bullies in any other way than to meet them face on.
Appeasement , and accepting a 1 year ban would be , does not work. They will be back for more !

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Good to see @BillyShears and @Didsbury Dave back, though not sure about the pervading air of pessimism.

As far I can surmise there’s no way that Ceferin would be in a position to agree any deal where City wouldn’t get a ban, especially in the light of Infantino deal last time around. Equally City wouldn’t agree to a ban bearing in mind as far as City are concerned we’ve done our time.

The IC investigation was very possibly rushed due to time pressures, equally City were never likely to engage to heavily with UEFA on the basis that the source of their evidence were emails that may not have been lawfully obtained.

Once the IC investigation concluded we were only going to get a ban. At this point City must only be looking at CAS. As if they were banned they had that recourse, if they agreed to a ban then no right to appeal.

As a result City are likely to contest the legality or otherwise of UEFA’s evidence as an initial point before getting into issues of fair procedure, proportionality and double punishment. These are largely points that could only be made to CAS.

TLDR ultimately despite the views on here, this case once opened was only ever going to be decided by CAS as neither City could never agree to a mutually acceptable deal.

 

[BillyShears]

Good to see @BillyShears and @Didsbury Dave back, though not sure about the pervading air of pessimism.

As far I can surmise there’s no way that Ceferin would be in a position to agree any deal where City wouldn’t get a ban, especially in the light of Infantino deal last time around. Equally City wouldn’t agree to a ban bearing in mind as far as City are concerned we’ve done our time.

The IC investigation was very possibly rushed due to time pressures, equally City were never likely to engage to heavily with UEFA on the basis that the source of their evidence were emails that may not have been lawfully obtained.

Once the IC investigation concluded we were only going to get a ban. At this point City must only be looking at CAS. As if they were banned they had that recourse, if they agreed to a ban then no right to appeal.

As a result City are likely to contest the legality or otherwise of UEFA’s evidence as an initial point before getting into issues of fair procedure, proportionality and double punishment. These are largely points that could only be made to CAS.

TLDR ultimately despite the views on here, this case once opened was only ever going to be decided by CAS as neither City could never agree to a mutually acceptable deal.

I think the TLDR is a fair summation.

I guess that my overriding sense is still that this was a thorny, political, hot potato that actually could've been predicted from the moment the leaks dropped and you saw the first headlines from guys like Tebas saying that something should be done. In that climate I feel that a level of diplomacy between City and UEFA would've helped.

It's not so much that I'm pessimistic that City are definitely losing - I'm just not buying the bullishness from City that this is open and shut and there will be clear vindication for us at the end of it.

 

[KS55]

What truly irks with all of this shit is that our ‘crime’ amounts to no more than wanting to be allowed to spend the same amount of money as the old guard and to compete on a level playing field (and even now the highest wage bill and squad cost belongs to United, not us). The punishment we will get however, if we are found guilty of undermining the laughably named Financial ‘Fair’ Play rules, will be so utterly disproportionate to the offence, that it will make transportation to Van Diemen’s Land for stealing a turnip, seem like Steven Gerrard getting found not guilty by a jury of Scousers after he blatantly and publicly beat up a DJ. I have not the slightest doubt that all of what you say above is true, albeit that PB has qualified the Company Law angle for us. The intention of the rags and the dippers, et al, is to ruin us completely and irrevocably, and they will leave no stone unturned, no smear story unleaked, in their quest to achieve that. If we don’t win this case then we are quite likely to be utterly fucked, and if our enemies can leverage the Premier League to relegate us and strip us of our titles then they surely will.
The positive point, and Dear God I pray it wasn’t an elaborate bluff, is that whatever his briefing was, we gave Ceferin short shrift, an act which points to supreme confidence amongst the club’s hierarchy. The negative is the concern, IMO, that whatever leaks and dodges UEFA have or have not been responsible for during the process, will ultimately sit as second fiddle to our ability to discredit the content of those emails, whatever their provenance, and I don’t think CAS will view City opting not to do that on the grounds that they were hacked or were taken out of context, in a positive light. I hope then that we have that evidence, and if we do, then I don’t understand why we have not produced it sooner, and our failure (as far as we know) to have done so, makes me very wary of how this is all going to pan out

But you dont know what evidence we produced.

 

[nmc]

Good to see you post again mate. Hope you’re well.

I share your cynicism of the “smoking gun”/irrefutable proof. If you have something like that you don’t pull it out like a rabbit from a hat in court. You use it to stop the court ever taking place with all its financial and image costs. I think some fans have been carried away by the club’s bullishness: you have to be bullish about your own evidence; it’s part of the game.

I’d take a one year ban right now and my suspicion is that’s what we will get.

So if you had a smoking gun on some of the G14 you’d play your hand at UEFA? I wouldn’t. I’d go to CAS and get the evidence overseen and judged by someone impartial.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

I think the TLDR is a fair summation.

I guess that my overriding sense is still that this was a thorny, political, hot potato that actually could've been predicted from the moment the leaks dropped and you saw the first headlines from guys like Tebas saying that something should be done. In that climate I feel that a level of diplomacy between City and UEFA would've helped.

It's not so much that I'm pessimistic that City are definitely losing - I'm just not buying the bullishness from City that this is open and shut and there will be clear vindication for us at the end of it.

I agree that City’s bullishness doesn’t tally with a case brought this far. I would say that City have to be bullish as otherwise who will sign for us or extend their contract?

One other thing we are most likely to win on a legal not factual basis such as breach of fair procedure, time limits or admissibility of evidence. It will mean that we’re seen as winning on a technicality. So no knockout blow but I’d be delighted with that outcome.

 

[BillyShears]

So if you had a smoking gun on some of the G14 you’d play your hand at UEFA? I wouldn’t. I’d go to CAS and get the evidence overseen and judged by someone impartial.

If City had a real smoking gun then none of this would've happened.

The notion that they'd let their reputations be sullied in the way they have with leaks, rumours, and innuendos, only to then pitch up at CAS with something which would've killed the investigation at source seems rather far fetched to me.

I think the best case scenario in terms of 'smoking gun' is simply that they've found a technicality within UEFA's rules which stops them from being able to punish City for something historical in this manner.

 

[BillyShears]

One other thing we are most likely to win on a legal not factual basis such as breach of fair procedure, time limits or admissibility of evidence. It will mean that we’re seen as winning on a technicality. So no knockout blow but I’d be delighted with that outcome.

Yep see my reply to NMC above!

 

[Kazzydeyna]

A two year ban will be catastrophic for the club. Both practically and in terms of the damage it will do to the club's reputation and the owners.

Hard to see how there wouldn't be a serious knock on effect and also an obvious fall guy. Generally that's the guy at the top. Khaldoon isn't sacking himself or Simon Pearce as they're effectively fireproof because of their positions inside AD and their closeness to the Sheikh.

Maybe I'm wrong and in Soriano's commercial skills mean that this won't effect him either, but I'm not convinced.

I'm looking on the bright side, mainly out of blind faith, and looking at it as in we get cleared, Soriano et Al are fully vindicated, City then go on a rebuilding splurge the likes of which weve never seen.

That said, if we ARE provably guilty and the ban is upheld (or even just reduced to one year) then the consequences for the club would be utterly catastrophic and would put us back to a worse position than 2008 as the stench of cheating would be sticking around for years and would certainly impact on future plans. We could wave goodbye to KDB, Bernardo, Raheem, Eric and more and also struggle to replace like with anywhere near like. It's even just about conceivable that we could be stripped of titles, cups, and records.

If THAT were to happen then I don't believe anybody at the top of the club would be unsackable, up to and including Khaldoon.

What gives me comfort, apart from my own blind faith, is that if we HAD done what we are accused of then I don't believe City would have been stupid enough to refuse a second pinch nor do I believe our top guys would have been anywhere near so bullish in public.
I'm not an expert on Arabic culture but I do know that loss of face and loss of perceived honesty is a massive No-No.

I think we will be fine and move forward at a pace after this (as I believe we have been reticent to really go for it before this is sorted once and for all - City would have been fully aware they were aiming to bring us down for something for the last few years for certain).

Have faith, keep our chins up, defend the club at all times.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

If and when we win this case. it cannot be on a technicality, we have got to deliver a complete knockout blow, to the whole of UEFA'S FFP. In other words blow completely out of the water. If we don't do this they will come again in a few years and try the same thing over again.

Does anybody else agree with this or not

 

[Saddleworth2]

If and when we win this case. it cannot be on a technicality, we have got to deliver a complete knockout blow, to the whole of UEFA'S FFP. In other words blow completely out of the water. If we don't do this they will come again in a few years and try the same thing over again.

Does anybody else agree with this or not

Whilst I would love that to happen, I don’t believe it will. Like others, I believe we will win this on a point of process. With no ban, we go about our business again sadly being screwed every so often by dodgy refereeing and VAR at FA and European level. It will take more than just us to topple that bunch of crooks.

 

[petrusha]

That said, if we ARE provably guilty and the ban is upheld (or even just reduced to one year) then the consequences for the club would be utterly catastrophic and would put us back to a worse position than 2008 as the stench of cheating would be sticking around for years and would certainly impact on future plans.

The irony being that everyone believes we funnelled extra owner funding into the club as sponsorship money to inflate our income, whereas what we're actually accused of doing involved foregoing a big chunk of a sponsorship accepted by UEFA as fairly valued, with the money then allegedly being made up by the owner. In other words, we actually gained no financial advantage from doing so. Frankly, the whole episode is rather absurd - it would be comical if the consequences weren't so serious for the club.