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

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%

  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%

  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%
  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exeter Blue I am here said:
If that’s the case and I were a gambling man, then I’d say we’re screwed. If ADUG was feeding money into Etihad with a view to it being funnelled back to us as sponsorship, my instinct (which I know counts for sod all) is that this case is too high profile for CAS to bite the bullet and throw it out on technical grounds, and the ban will be upheld
Click to expand...

not really, surely it's within the realm of CAS to comprehend that that sort of evidence from a third party is unrealistic to obtain in the first place.

It's like a child writing a letter to Santa Claus and somebody asking them to prove they received presents from Santa by taking them to North Pole. It's not within the child's remit to provide that evidence and it can prove it received the presents legitimately.
 
SiMCFC said:
Etihads accounting/funding is fuck all to do with UEFA/CAS/CFG though...

We can't provide evidence of their accounts. It would be the same as asking Nissan where all their money comes from, fuck all to do with CFG. We can and will show money was received from them that is all.
Click to expand...

Etihad’s accounting may be fuck all to do with anyone, but the reality is there’s some (IMO) very persuasive emails suggesting we indulged in some wholesale owner investment using Etihad as the conduit.....which is why we’re now involved in a Court case that has the potential to ruin us for years to come.
 
I'm not confident we will win this case at all for a number of reasons, but maybe it is my 35 years of suffering too many " Typical City" moments that makes me feel so pessimistic.

Firstly they dont want us at the party and never have. We have put too many noses out of joint. People say we are rich and powerful but so are all the clubs working against us and they are united in their efforts and we stand alone.

Secondly in every dealings we have had with UEFA I have heard all the positive noises and marvelled at intelligent well meaning posters stating we have nothing to worry about, we have a cast iron case, we will win.....then we failed.

Thirdly I dont trust any of them. EUFA, CAS, none of them. Football is a huge money making business and where there is money and vested interest there is always corruption. Always. We are up against it make no mistake and I, along with all Blue's, will be delighted if my fears are proved unfounded.
 
M18CTID said:
Didn’t @projectriver post an extract from an article by David Conn earlier that despite City disagreeing, UEFA decided Etihad were a related party? If that is indeed true, then maybe there’s a different angle to this that we’re not considering. Instead of us all trying to show that our owner didn’t fund the shortfall, surely it makes no difference if he did because UEFA declared Etihad a related party? Maybe that’s the irrefutable evidence that City have. Picture the conversation:

UEFA: “We’re hitting you with a 2 year ban and a big fuck-off fine for using disguised owner investment to make up the shortfall in the Etihad deal”
City: “We’ve done nothing wrong and have irrefutable evidence to back it up”
UEFA: “Like what?”
City: “Well remember back in 2014 when we were in disagreement that Etihad were a related party or not? We said they weren’t and you said they were. We tried telling you but you wouldn’t listen. We’ve got it all here in writing from you so it’s irrelevant if our owner bailed Etihad out as you yourselves deemed them to be a related party and had signed off the sponsorship deal as being fair value. There’s our irrefutable evidence of no wrongdoing so fuck off and stop wasting our time!”
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I would be saying to them and I've said this before. They (or PWC) claimed Etihad is a related party, along with the other Abu Dhabi sponsors. They apparently reduced the sponsorships of those other ones, according to Conn, or at least that was their suggestion/recommendation. Whether UEFA actually applied that reduction for the other sponsorships, they seem to have accepted Etihad was in the right sort of ball park. So Sheikh Mansour could have funded every penny of that as that's allowed under FFP.

If they are trying to prove now that they aren't related parties and that we've knowingly received owner investment, that would appeear to be a complete U-turn from their original position. It therefore makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to prove.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Etihad’s accounting may be fuck all to do with anyone, but the reality is there’s some (IMO) very persuasive emails suggesting we indulged in some wholesale owner investment using Etihad as the conduit.....which is why we’re now involved in a Court case that has the potential to ruin us for years to come.
Click to expand...

The issue to me is more, if it is funded directly from ADUG to us, we forgot to use Etihad as the conduit. Had it been from ADUG to Etihad to us then there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

I am increasingly convinced if those emails are true, this was all due to ADUG helping out Etihad. I just hope there are subsequent emails showing it did go through Etihads books.
 
BongoBlue said:
He didn't? I knew there was a possibility of this but I thought he was still leading the legal team?
Not a good sign I suppose if he reviewed the case and decided not to take it.
Click to expand...


That’s an assumption. Perhaps more likely that his previous cases & involvement with other UAE countries caused a conflict of interest??
 
Either way, there's publicly available information in the Open Skies agreement which counters that accusation before we even have to worry about getting Etihad's accounts out.
 
M18CTID said:
Didn’t @projectriver post an extract from an article by David Conn earlier that despite City disagreeing, UEFA decided Etihad were a related party? If that is indeed true, then maybe there’s a different angle to this that we’re not considering. Instead of us all trying to show that our owner didn’t fund the shortfall, surely it makes no difference if he did because UEFA declared Etihad a related party? Maybe that’s the irrefutable evidence that City have. Picture the conversation:

UEFA: “We’re hitting you with a 2 year ban and a big fuck-off fine for using disguised owner investment to make up the shortfall in the Etihad deal”
City: “We’ve done nothing wrong and have irrefutable evidence to back it up”
UEFA: “Like what?”
City: “Well remember back in 2014 when we were in disagreement that Etihad were a related party or not? We said they weren’t and you said they were. We tried telling you but you wouldn’t listen. We’ve got it all here in writing from you so it’s irrelevant if our owner bailed Etihad out as you yourselves deemed them to be a related party and had signed off the sponsorship deal as being fair value. There’s our irrefutable evidence of no wrongdoing so fuck off and stop wasting our time!”
Click to expand...
This was similar to what I was going to post as a reply to an earlier comment from @projectriver as I was struggling to see exactly what UEFA’s case is as we’ve already been classed as having Etihad as a related party. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me, I don’t quite get exactly what we are being charged with, lol.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's exactly what I would be saying to them and I've said this before. They (or PWC) claimed Etihad is a related party, along with the other Abu Dhabi sponsors. They apparently reduced the sponsorships of those other ones, according to Conn, or at least that was their suggestion/recommendation. Whether UEFA actually applied that reduction for the other sponsorships, they seem to have accepted Etihad was in the right sort of ball park. So Sheikh Mansour could have funded every penny of that as that's allowed under FFP.

If they are trying to prove now that they aren't related parties and that we've knowingly received owner investment, that would appeear to be a complete U-turn from their original position. It therefore makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to prove.
Click to expand...
I really think UEFA are getting pushed into this from the other members on the UEFA board who have ties with clubs in the G14 and have a huge gripe with our club.
 
CC1 said:
That’s an assumption. Perhaps more likely that his previous cases & involvement with other UAE countries caused a conflict of interest??
Click to expand...
Wasn't aware of his previous involvement with other UAE countries. That sounds a lot more plausible to me as to why he didn't take ours then.
 
Rammy Blue said:
This was similar to what I was going to post as a reply to an earlier comment from @projectriver as I was struggling to see exactly what UEFA’s case is as we’ve already been classed as having Etihad as a related party. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me, I don’t quite get exactly what we are being charged with, lol.
Click to expand...

My head’s spinning mate. I have no idea what’s legal, what’s dodgy, what constitutes evidence, what doesn’t, or what the charges are, anymore. I long for the day when I can just watch football again without all this fucking agg
 
Shaelumstash said:
God I hope we have some "irrefutable evidence" because those emails don't read great do they?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure you can read too much into them, they span several years and there were likely scores or even hundreds of emails on the subject of sponsorship/investment during that time.

If you were to look at some of my emails about certain customer accounts and selected 3 or 4 from several years worth, I’m pretty sure you could come up with something that looked dodgy.

I can honestly believe looking at those emails that they have been taken out of context exactly as city claim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top