I have just read the FT column and it is a bit all over the place. However, one of the comment pieces (by someone going by the name ROXYJ), stood out for me. I have appended the comment(s) below and the full FT piece is here available on this link:
https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e
"This is a silly article. First of all it shows UEFA are still leaking, despite the rules of CAS. "A person with knowledge of the governing body's investigations...". How is David by the way? Not seen him for a couple of years.
Second, this is not about the future of FFP at all. FFP is about the poorest way of overseeing financial sustainability imaginable but the rules are still there and still being applied. This is about something that happened 7 years ago, that City have already been punished for. The first major legal questions that CAS will have to decide is whther UEFA, under its own 5-year Statute of Limitations or the terms 2014 Settlement Agrement concluded as part of that original breach, even had the right to re-open the case at all. I know a very experience commercial lawyer who believes they are likely to lose on one or both of these grounds alone. You've never even mentioned this in the article.
Third, there is clear evidence in the public domain, deposited as part of the Open Skies case brought in the USA against the three Gulf airlines (including Etihad) that the airline was liberally funded by the Abu Dhabi Government. You've probably covered that case in this very paper. There's even a leaked presentation, which was prepared for the Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed by consultants Booz Allen, which states specifically that the Executive Council was funding the Etihad sponsorship of Manchester City. That was back in 2010-2011. As long as the money isn't coming from the owner himself, Sheikh Mansour via ADUG, then there is simply no breach of FFP rules. Where Etihad got the money from is only a problem if it came from the owner as disuguised equity investment. Even then, if Eithad is deemed to be a related party (as UEFA appeared to be trying to claim) then it's OK as long as the sponsorship is considered to be "fair value", which is what a non-related party might pay for it.
Another point I'm sure City will make is about the behaviour of the Chief Investigator, Yves Leterme, in a similar case involving PSG. They reported significant sponsorship revenue (>€100m per annum from Qatari sources who were definitely related parties. Leterme had a third-party brand valuation consultancy, Octagon, look at this and they reckoned it was worth just a few million Euros, so less than 10% of what PSG were claiming. That valuation meant that PSG would have failed FFP for a second time and faced a severe sanctions regime. Yet Leterme allowed PSG to appoint their own consultants (Nielsen) who valued it at €100m., which was over 10 times what Octagon had valued it. That meant PSG just passed the FFP test and Leterme waved that through to the higher Adjudicatory Chamber without quiblle and without consulting any of his CFCB colleages. They were outraged and demanded the case was re-opened. Yet because it was referred back to the Investigatory Chamber after a 10-day limit, it couldn't be and this decision was upheld at CAS when PSG appealed. So CAS take time limits very seriously and I'm sure they will in this case."
As for the emails:
"They show what Der Spiegel wanted to show. So, for example, there's an email to Simon Pearce from a finance person at City or CFG that asks if ADUG (Sheikh Mansour's company) is the source of the funds. Yet Der Spiegel didn't show Pearce's reply. If that had confirmed ADUG as the surce of funds then that's probably a smoking gun, yet Der Spiegel didn't print it. Maybe that reply said "ADUG don't get involved in this as they're a related party" or something similar.
I've spoke to two respected media commentators on football finance matters, one of whom has no love for the City ownership I can assure you. Both shrugged their shoulders and said there was no smoking gun in those Der Spiegel articles. A bit embarrassing maybe but both agreed there was nothing there to hang them on."
