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

[tolmie's hairdoo]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

We have been able to clearly show the flow of money at CAS. The question now is purely if it can be proved otherwise.

It's one of the significant major hurdles which has existed for UEFA all along.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I don’t want to sound like the idiot fans of other clubs who say we have cooked the books or are committing money laundering. But how can CAS punish us without a criminal investigation ? I know it’s was suggested that there is no public interest (rival clubs would disagree) and if we have done what’s alleged we have actually given the tax man more money not less but we have non the less fiddled the books. The fact this case is major news but nothing is happening in the criminal sense surely makes it likely we will win at CAS. Can it even be a sort of defense ? Am I missing something ? Heck the press who have gone after us haven’t even suggested we are criminals perhaps they to know we haven’t done anything wrong

Best way to not sound like an idiot is to not sound like an idiot.

 

[domalino]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

The thing is, FFP is not tax law.

There might be a UEFA rule about inflating sponsorships, but the tax man doesn't care that the Aabar sponsorship went up £1m this year for no reason, as long as it's accounted for properly.

And submissions to UEFA for FFP review are not legal documents where lying on them is a crime. So even if we did falsify them, that's not a crime either.

 

[City & Blue Brazil]

The thing is, FFP is not tax law.

There might be a UEFA rule about inflating sponsorships, but the tax man doesn't care that the Aabar sponsorship went up £1m this year for no reason, as long as it's accounted for properly.

Our losses brought forward for tax purposes will be so large that the taxman will be very uninterested in any profits disclosed in the accounts for many years to come. On the other hand the taxman is always interested in payments to players and agents for obvious reasons.

 

[Akpowell]

He is 100% making a point of this. I'm not one to look for messages, but no way would he be focusing on this so much if the CAS thing wasn't ongoing, he'd be saying finish second, finish as high in the table, get maximum points etc etc. he is using the words Champions League deliberately, imho.

Why do you think he's doing it on purpose

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

We have been able to clearly show the flow of money at CAS. The question now is purely if it can be proved otherwise.

It's one of the significant major hurdles which has existed for UEFA all along.

This is the central issue of the whole matter. Presumably City have shown documentary evidence to the court that there has been no modification of contracts, no inflation of sponsorship deals and that the source of the cash coming into the club is exactly what the club and its accounts claim and demonstrate. We don't know what has been presented to CAS but I assume its what I reckon, but do you know this, tolmie? If you do, then there is now way the DS emails are in context or of any real relevance. UEFA cannot prove that our accounts are anything but a full and true representation.

As for emails, I would make the point that in 2014 the club has emails that show that it actually worked closely with UEFA (cooperated?!) to avoid falling foul of the regulations and to avoid being sanctioned, and after assuring the club that it was on course to avoid any sanction UEFA changed the relevant dates to ensure City failed and copped some very serious sanctions. This seems an object lesson in the price of cooperation, which was reinforced when City saw the IC in action and could evaluate the integrity of its chairman and chief investigator. Even so a charge of non-cooperation is hard to sustain in the face of a dossier of some hundred documents. If City's appeal is upheld it is plainly ludicrous to say that a one year ban and/or fine is justified because, although City didn't do any of the things UEFA claim they did, they must be banned because they didn't help prove they did!

 

[SilverFox2]

The thing is, FFP is not tax law.

There might be a UEFA rule about inflating sponsorships, but the tax man doesn't care that the Aabar sponsorship went up £1m this year for no reason, as long as it's accounted for properly.

And submissions to UEFA for FFP review are not legal documents where lying on them is a crime. So even if we did falsify them, that's not a crime either.

Anyone got an opinion on whether "spirit of the rule" is mandatory?

In other words can the terminology of a UEFA rule be taken literally or is it simply a shorthand to include whatever UEFA want.?

 

[OB1]

They say you are only as young as the person you feel - so that makes me 42 thanks to the wife!!!

Hmmmm, my wife is only 18 months younger than me.

 

[slbsn]

We could do with a flow chart - If this happens >>then this will happen or this will happen.
I'll leave that with you and check back for your resulting chart later ;-)

If only there were some articles and a couple of podcasts on this topic...https://ninetythreetwenty.com/blog/seeing-the-wood-for-the-ffps-manchester-city-uefa-go-to-war/

 

[OB1]

We are not really sure what UEFA are accusing us of but it looks more than breaching FFP. It seems they’ve are accusing us of inflating sponsorship deals, and not declaring related party transactions, basically falsifying account. The tax man would not like either of these

Good grief, you don't half find some dangerous talk on social media.

This isn't about falsifying accounts. Etihad are our sponsors and I am not aware that anyone in "authority" has suggested or shown that they have not accounted for their sponsorship of City. The problem is that UEFA have seen stolen documents that suggest Etihad received money from elsewhere that covered that expense and UEFA have deemed that elsewhere to be a party related to City. City have we hope demonstrated beyond doubt that the money was not provided to Etihad by a related party.

 

[Scott mcfc]

This, in my opinion, is an fair way to think about the current ffp (CAS) situation but to me it is not what guides my thinking. For me, it is about the principle of the honesty of the club‘s top people. I totally believe them when they say that the club has done nothing wrong and that if the facts (and only the facts) are used to determine the CAS outcome we will be totally exonerated. If the CAS decision does not totally absolve us from any wrong doing, I expect the club to take it to the highest legal court. If we do not, then the principle of the club’s honesty will have been broken AND once broken can never again be mended.
The club’s top hierarchy have put their reputations on the line and I hope that my belief in their integrity is not damaged in any way. I am sure that my belief will be sustained in the days, months and years to come. I have been a city supporter for well over 50 years but this is a (THE) watershed moment for me.

Well put,im in exactly same thoughts as this reguarding clubs reputation on line,just cant see them being so sure,yet at same time they know there in wrong,just doesent make sense

 

[CC1]

This is the central issue of the whole matter. Presumably City have shown documentary evidence to the court that there has been no modification of contracts, no inflation of sponsorship deals and that the source of the cash coming into the club is exactly what the club and its accounts claim and demonstrate. We don't know what has been presented to CAS but I assume its what I reckon, but do you know this, tolmie? If you do, then there is now way the DS emails are in context or of any real relevance. UEFA cannot prove that our accounts are anything but a full and true representation.

As for emails, I would make the point that in 2014 the club has emails that show that it actually worked closely with UEFA (cooperated?!) to avoid falling foul of the regulations and to avoid being sanctioned, and after assuring the club that it was on course to avoid any sanction UEFA changed the relevant dates to ensure City failed and copped some very serious sanctions. This seems an object lesson in the price of cooperation, which was reinforced when City saw the IC in action and could evaluate the integrity of its chairman and chief investigator. Even so a charge of non-cooperation is hard to sustain in the face of a dossier of some hundred documents. If City's appeal is upheld it is plainly ludicrous to say that a one year ban and/or fine is justified because, although City didn't do any of the things UEFA claim they did, they must be banned because they didn't help prove they did!

There must be some very strong evidence against us - surely the IC & AC had to have something to justify such a huge punishment, especially as we’d already been punished for the period concerned?
They can’t be so amateurish as to go to CAS unarmed.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

There must be some very strong evidence against us - surely the IC & AC had to have something to justify such a huge punishment, especially as we’d already been punished for the period concerned?
They can’t be so amateurish as to go to CAS unarmed.

I also keep thinking they can’t be so amateurish to only have the emails as evidence, I know there is also mention of using our own submitted documents against us.

I then remember Platini took a one million plus euro payment direct into his bank account with zero supporting evidence of why he received the payment, which to this day he fails to understand how it lost him his job, so maybe they are just a set of corrupt arrogant cùntz who think they can do as they wish!

 

[ganganvince]

CAS would normally give the findings to both parties a few days prior to publishing as it was their intention to publish on the 10th can we assume City and Uefa know the outcome?

 

[Rammy Blue]

CAS would normally give the findings to both parties a few days prior to publishing as it was their intention to publish on the 10th can we assume City and Uefa know the outcome?

I wouldn’t have thought so as yet, I reckon maybe 48 hours before.

 

[cityzen81]

CAS would normally give the findings to both parties a few days prior to publishing as it was their intention to publish on the 10th can we assume City and Uefa know the outcome?

I personally think so.

They way Pep has been talking about the need to qualify and the fact UEFA asked for it to be pushed back seems to point to both parties being aware of the outcome.

 

[flook]

CAS would normally give the findings to both parties a few days prior to publishing as it was their intention to publish on the 10th can we assume City and Uefa know the outcome?

Was wondering this myself, can't be far away for the club now surely

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

CAS would normally give the findings to both parties a few days prior to publishing as it was their intention to publish on the 10th can we assume City and Uefa know the outcome?

I am watching all Pep’s pre/post match interviews as they come along, and hoping he mentions something about Champions League, then he pauses, gives a big smile and knowing wink direct into the camera and in this very subtle way let’s all know all is good ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don’t want to sound like the idiot fans of other clubs who say we have cooked the books or are committing money laundering. But how can CAS punish us without a criminal investigation ? I know it’s was suggested that there is no public interest (rival clubs would disagree) and if we have done what’s alleged we have actually given the tax man more money not less but we have non the less fiddled the books. The fact this case is major news but nothing is happening in the criminal sense surely makes it likely we will win at CAS. Can it even be a sort of defense ? Am I missing something ? Heck the press who have gone after us haven’t even suggested we are criminals perhaps they to know we haven’t done anything wrong

Not sure where to start with this but here goes:

• CAS aren't "pursuing" us. They're the appeal body of last resort, based on the procedure set out by UEFA and that has to be folowed by all clubs under the UEFA umbrella. You can elect to go to CAS once you've exhausted all the UEFA-mandated courses of action, so it's our decision to do that. I suspect you meant UEFA
  
• We've not been accused of anything criminal. We've been accused of breaking the financial rules of the governing body of European football and those aren't laws that attract criminal charges. Even if it's found we broke those rules, that doesn't imply we've deliberately been party to knowingly committing criminal offences. A criminal offence would be, like in the Wirecard case, claiming you had money in the bank that you didn't actually have. If we'd reported £50m a year from Etihad yet there's only £5m going through the books, that's false accounting. What we appear to have been accused of is Etihad only paying £5m and someone else paying the other £45m.
  
• We're not remotely liable to tax, because of our accumulated losses (over £300m bottom line currently and probably more for tax purposes), and are unlikely to be liable for many years to come.

 

[berryblue]

West Ham sent us down last game of season not the rags,us and Brum both on 31pts Brum won finished on 33 (2 pts for win) we lost at West ham and finished on 31.

That's what the rags say when they want to think we didn't help send them down.