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

[Prater70]

What a dignified club we are. After all they have, and probably are still doing to us, we are still prepared to give Liverpool a guard of honour. I am not sure if this is compulsory. Dignity is commendable but does it back fire on us ?

 

[Gordyola]

I remain unconvinced. Look at the Mubdala site and they are both referenced as HH.

this has been discussed before in detail with input from posters knowledgeable in UAE protocol
Members royal family have the title “his highness” hence HH, as you note this is used on websites
When using HH without titles and name it is only ever referring to Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and to do otherwise is against UAE protocol

 

[franksinatra]

On the contrary PB, I’ve been saying the same as you. Indeed Projectriver pulled me up on it earlier this week, stating this was the last time he was going to go over the same ground, after I asked for clarification of the point. The fact that we would appear to have been blatantly funding Etihad (re the £59m payment ‘HH’ would be responsible for) for them to in turn meet their sponsorship obligations, has always been my biggest concern, to the point that I still can’t reconcile myself to the possibility that CAS won’t regard it as the essence of the whole case, and our audited accounts are bound to be shipshape cos money coming into City from Etihad is not where the issue lies IMO.
However, I accept the argument (from people who have a hundred times more idea of what they’re talking about than I do) that if UEFA deemed it fair market value at the time, then the audited accounts should have primacy.

By the way, am I right in thinking that when the Etihad deal was first announced, City stated that the cost of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations would be met by the Executive Council? If so, I don’t understand the apparent switch to ADUG meeting the bulk of the payment....

I think I am also at a loss or have misunderstood some of the points on here.

If It is evidenced, through ADUG, we have funded 59 million of the sponsorship deal with Etihad and similarly financed other sponsorship details, I do not understand the relevance of if they were considered “market value” as ultimately we have funded them ourselves and so have broken rules on owner investment.

I have heard a lot of reasoning about the case being thrown out due to the 5 year time period and allegations already being covered under the 2014 sanctions but not a proper explanation of the emails and why we could argue it based on “context”.

Also again as a complete layman if the audited accounts show we received say 67.5 million from Etihad I am not really sure how that proves anything in our favour, as surely the issue is how that payment was funded.

Like I say its not my field of expertise and so I may have overlooked something in the previous posts.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In any event, all can be cured on these topics by the de novo review of the case at CAS. It therefore becomes just background and neither here nor there. There is no victory for City just from CAS saying the AC didn't act well. CAS have to find the ACs judgment on matters was wrong.

Sorry to be the pedant (heaven forbid) but isn’t ‘de novo review’ a paradox?

 

[KS55]

I very much doubt Soriano, despite being the CEO of City Football Group, had much to do with this. He didn't arrive until late 2012 for one thing, when all these arrangements were already in place.

I don't agree. Firstly he made strong unequivicle statements that we were not in breach and the enquiry was political.Three possibilities:
1. He was telling the truth.
2. He had been poorly briefed and thus got it wrong.
3. He knowingly lied.
I obvs want No.1 to be correct.
No.2 would be dropping a bollock for not checking precisely what happened before such a strong stance.
No.3 would be unconscionable and a betrayal of the fans.
I believe he did not lie, but I cannot know what he was told.
Even if the arrangements pre dated his appointment, he was CEO and therefore responsible for them continuing. If there was something wrong, it was incumbent on him at the very least to raise it with Khaldoon.
I think he is an honourable man and we would be the poorer without him. So, please let it be the truth.

 

[moomba]

If It is evidenced, through ADUG, we have funded 59 million of the sponsorship deal with Etihad and similarly financed other sponsorship details, I do not understand the relevance of if they were considered “market value” as ultimately we have funded them ourselves and so have broken rules on owner investment.

If a sponsorship comes from a third party it doesn't matter how much it is. If a sponsorship comes from a related party it has to be fair market value.

An owner can sponsor his own club for as much as he likes within the rules. But it has to be declared and if it is above fair market value it could well be adjusted downward by UEFA for the purposes of FFP.

 

[WRicko]

I think I've said this before, but our approach has been shit or bust since the first Der Spiegel leaks. We've refused to engage with anyone on or off the record. We've simply said "we're not commenting on out of context/stolen materials". Which is fine. But once the CL ban came down, the game totally changed. At that point I would've expected us to sit down with UEFA and find a route out of this without anymore negative press.

However we seem to have doubled down on how innocent we are since the ban came down. Now notwithstanding my personal feeling about the rights/wrongs of FFP, it's a bold stance for us to take. You won't find a judge/lawyer on the planet that will tell you a case is ever 100%. We're dealing with complex matters and in the end it's going to be up to the interpretation of the CAS judges.

Shit or bust.

I am sorry but this post is rubbish. There seems to have been some discussions with cerferan tho we do not know if we wanted a deal. If we are innocent how can we deal ? We cannot comment on ongoing legal matters. Look how CAS dammed UEFA in CAS one. I wish we could I wish city would come out with some of the details on here. Not that the media would bother reporting it one it does not fit the agenda second it would bore no city fans to death

 

[franksinatra]

If a sponsorship comes from a third party it doesn't matter how much it is. If a sponsorship comes from a related party it has to be fair market value.

An owner can sponsor his own club for as much as he likes within the rules. But it has to be declared and if it is above fair market value it could well be adjusted downward by UEFA for the purposes of FFP.

Thank you very much for the explanation. So would the issue be we have not declared the funding then and if the owner could fund us, within the rules, why would the emails suggest we did it via Etihad??

 

[KS55]

But you think City won't use this as an argument anyway so I can't see why you seem bent on getting everyone to agree with you.

Be fair. @projectriver is just giving his opinion which is based on high expertise and experience. You don't have to agree with him.

 

[BillyShears]

I am sorry but this post is rubbish. There seems to have been some discussions with cerferan tho we do not know if we wanted a deal. If we are innocent how can we deal ? We cannot comment on ongoing legal matters. Look how CAS dammed UEFA in CAS one. I wish we could I wish city would come out with some of the details on here. Not that the media would bother reporting it one it does not fit the agenda second it would bore no city fans to death

To be honest I'm fairly comfortable with my opinion and post that you quoted. I'm not the gospel though and absolutely it could be absolute rubbish. I guess time will tell on all these things.

 

[slbsn]

I am sorry but this post is rubbish. There seems to have been some discussions with cerferan tho we do not know if we wanted a deal. If we are innocent how can we deal ? We cannot comment on ongoing legal matters. Look how CAS dammed UEFA in CAS one. I wish we could I wish city would come out with some of the details on here. Not that the media would bother reporting it one it does not fit the agenda second it would bore no city fans to death

Of course we could (and still could) deal. First of all we must have dealt on the same basis in 2014 when we entered the 2014 settlement - we certainly did not admit the breaches then. So whilst we may have taken a tactical decision not to settle, we absolutely could have. We CHOSE not to.

We can comment on legal matters. Again we may choose HOW we comment but we absolutely could have chosen to explain our defence. We CHOSE not to.

As for the media not reporting it, I don't agree. You can always find ways of getting a story out - briefings, exclusives, access etc. Again we CHOSE not to.

Can you see a theme?

 

[KS55]

Yes I've read it once or twice (!).
109 only says "doesn't exclude the possibility...rights not fully respected" (not exactly scathing)
110 says nothing relevant to the point
111 says if there was failings they were not sufficient to say "MCFC legitimately lost all faith in fair proceedings and a fair decision by the Adjudicatory Chamber"
112 says nothing relevant to the point
113 says the leaks were "worrisome" and City's complaints "not entirely without merit". Its relevant and meaningful context for CAS 2 but its hardly game changing.
114 is similar to 113 in importance.

In any event, all can be cured on these topics by the de novo review of the case at CAS. It therefore becomes just background and neither here nor there. There is no victory for City just from CAS saying the AC didn't act well. CAS have to find the ACs judgment on matters was wrong.

When I first read R57, I thought that it gave CAS power to run an enquiry de novo, but did not estop the appellant from raising previous procedural matters which might illustrate bad faith by Uefa's IC or AC.
Perhaps doing that in a sort of aside may not be good tactics. Saving grace is the presence of two of the panel from CAS 1.

 

[franksinatra]

When I first read R57, I thought that it gave CAS power to run an enquiry de novo, but did not estop the appellant from raising previous procedural matters which might illustrate bad faith by Uefa's IC or AC.
Perhaps doing that in a sort of aside may not be good tactics. Saving grace is the presence of two of the panel from CAS 1.

Lol. I might need google translate for this one.

 

[slbsn]

When I first read R57, I thought that it gave CAS power to run an enquiry de novo, but did not estop the appellant from raising previous procedural matters which might illustrate bad faith by Uefa's IC or AC.
Perhaps doing that in a sort of aside may not be good tactics. Saving grace is the presence of two of the panel from CAS 1.

I don't doubt they will raise it. But I do not think it will impact the CAS decision directly. The reality is that if CAS conclude the IC or AC was acting in bad faith, City's arguments will succeed because its logically impossible for UEFA to act in bad faith but be right on each step of the substantive argument. The essence of the bad faith allegation is that it was used to jump hurdles that couldn't be jumped without that bad faith.

 

[dickie davies]

If a sponsorship comes from a third party it doesn't matter how much it is. If a sponsorship comes from a related party it has to be fair market value.

An owner can sponsor his own club for as much as he likes within the rules. But it has to be declared and if it is above fair market value it could well be adjusted downward by UEFA for the purposes of FFP.

Thank you very much for the explanation. So would the issue be we have not declared the funding then and if the owner could fund us, within the rules, why would the emails suggest we did it via Etihad??

And then there is the twist in the plot
When we were originally found in breach of FFP, UEFA's auditors PWC, were arguing Etihad were a related party. City was arguing they were not
I've had it confirmed by @projectriver that the very incriminating email which speaks of ADUG shareholder making a payment (to make up Etihad's obligation), is after our argument with PWC
So our positions on whether Etihad is a related party are probably now reversed

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Good for you but in these troubled times an owner finding a dodgy way to put more money into the Club they own might isn’t much more than a misdemeanour IMHO. Yes I might think less of the administration but it won’t affect my love for City. If people want to walk away from supporting the club if we can no longer afford world class players then that’s my choice but I would prefer there to be 30k in the ground getting behind the lads.

I think k the Club’s values seem to have improved from the Swales and Lee eras anyway. Calls by staff to vulnerable fans, paying match day staff in full, full ticket and season card refunds for cancelled games, support of food banks and free sky codes for the games we can’t go to at least matches any cheating / manipulation on FFP we might or might not have done.

Too right. Their are too many holier than thou on this thread. Many of those are so quick to jump on the media thread should THEY say anything slightly damning.

 

[WRicko]

Of course we could (and still could) deal. First of all we must have dealt on the same basis in 2014 when we entered the 2014 settlement - we certainly did not admit the breaches then. So whilst we may have taken a tactical decision not to settle, we absolutely could have. We CHOSE not to.

We can comment on legal matters. Again we may choose HOW we comment but we absolutely could have chosen to explain our defence. We CHOSE not to.

As for the media not reporting it, I don't agree. You can always find ways of getting a story out - briefings, exclusives, access etc. Again we CHOSE not to.

Can you see a theme?

We have comment on the case via the in house interview but what more could we say? You do not outline your case for obvious legal and tactical reasons. We do not really know what UEFA will say either despite leaks. Look at other cases in other settings you do not really get any details.

As for settling taking a deal your assuming that there was a deal your previous post argued we did not do anything t to settle but we know we spoke a lot with Ceferan in any event if not guilty why settle ? Especially when even after negitions the punishment was so severe? Look at how we are treated in the media regarding our previous non guilt settlement imagine if we did that again. No one outside or city considers us not guilt the first time round. Does anyone on here consider Liverpool not guilt of hacking having settled and paid 1 million ? I have less respect for people who settle when innocent than people who clear there names

 

[KS55]

Lol. I might need google translate for this one.

Tis perfectly clear!

 

[bluemanchester]

Of course we could (and still could) deal. First of all we must have dealt on the same basis in 2014 when we entered the 2014 settlement - we certainly did not admit the breaches then. So whilst we may have taken a tactical decision not to settle, we absolutely could have. We CHOSE not to.

We can comment on legal matters. Again we may choose HOW we comment but we absolutely could have chosen to explain our defence. We CHOSE not to.

As for the media not reporting it, I don't agree. You can always find ways of getting a story out - briefings, exclusives, access etc. Again we CHOSE not to.

Can you see a theme?

The City directors and senior management choosing not to is the way our owners have run the club since they bought it. I have known many people "well in" at the club over the years and they always had an idea at what was going on, up to Garry Cook leaving, but since then the internal decisions have been guarded tighter than a ducks backside and thats watertight. So City choosing not to leak anything, in my view, is not unusual in fact it is the norm.

 

[slbsn]

We have comment on the case via the in house interview but what more could we say? You do not outline your case for obvious legal and tactical reasons. We do not really know what UEFA will say either despite leaks. Look at other cases in other settings you do not really get any details.

As for settling taking a deal your assuming that there was a deal your previous post argued we did not do anything t to settle but we know we spoke a lot with Ceferan in any event if not guilty why settle ? Especially when even after negitions the punishment was so severe? Look at how we are treated in the media regarding our previous non guilt settlement imagine if we did that again. No one outside or city considers us not guilt the first time round. Does anyone on here consider Liverpool not guilt of hacking having settled and paid 1 million ? I have less respect for people who settle when innocent than people who clear there names

We disagree but the key if City pursue this strategy, is that City win. Any other outcome and whether they are actually "innocent" will be irrelevant.