We breached in 2014. Of that, there is no doubt. We could claim we wouldn't have been punished if UEFA hadn't amended their rules slightly (but significantly) in the 2012/13 financial year after we'd filed our 2012 accounts. And after they'd given us multiple assurances we were on the right path. But they did, we fell foul of that and were sanctioned.
It seems to me that much of the financial chicanery that we seem to have done in that period was a direct result of believing we would be OK if we pulled it off. The sale of IP to the two spin-off companies, the acceleration of commercial revenues from Abu Dhabi were both designed to bring in additional revenue to meet the profit & loss result we thought we needed to achieve to avoid sanctions.
In the end, we breached by something like £80m, off the top of my head. Would it really be significant - deserving of a 2-season ban rather than the fine and other sanctions - if that'd been £100m, £120m or £150m? I doubt it.
In fact, had we not thought there might be a chance that we'd escape punishment, we might have said "Sod it. Let's maximise our losses now so we get them out of the way for the inevitable settlement regime". In other words, make this year look bad financially so next year looks better. So UEFA's change to the minutiae of calculating the wage figure in Annex XI had all sorts of consequences for where we are now.
I would have guessed that it's the post 2013 stuff they're mainly looking at therefore, during the period covered by the settlement agreement. So, asking the question about whether we overstated revenue to exit that settlement period. Yet the Der Spiegel emails clearly focused on the period prior to that, mainly that 2012/13 financial year. It just doesn't seem logical. UEFA would have to have solid evidence that the Abu Dhabi commercial contracts were padded beyond 2013 and, not only that, but that these revenues demonstrably came directly from ADUG.
