How so? UAE state stands behind the financial obligations of their state airline. When the UK had nationalised industries, that is how it would work.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Let’s say we are cleared will we not have to then release our evidence. Won’t CAS release the result then the reasoning ? Will the media really cover the details ? Even if they do it could be rather technical and perhaps grey ratchet than black and white (hope not) I just cannot see CAS going full on against UEFA unless they have really really messed up
On one level it does not matter how we are cleared just that we are we won’t stop rivals believe we are guilt players will only care about the team the money and the champions league not our good name new fans will only care about glory we will only care about being cleared but at the same time it must really grate the owners and could in directly damage the brand and sponsorship. What do people think will we release our evidence ?
On one level it does not matter how we are cleared just that we are we won’t stop rivals believe we are guilt players will only care about the team the money and the champions league not our good name new fans will only care about glory we will only care about being cleared but at the same time it must really grate the owners and could in directly damage the brand and sponsorship. What do people think will we release our evidence ?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
If they paid it to us like that then yes.No , but if Etihad pay 8m and Abu Dhabi pay the rest in any name or form we have.
G
G
ganganvince
Guest
Blame it on the age.I got it before the edit. Having said that I had to check whether Edwin Starr was in the band.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
Why would we do that though.If they paid it to us like that then yes.
Jazzman
Well-Known Member
If we showed the exact money flow to CAS, like Tolmie said, it must mean it all happened correctly. That is hard to argue against, unless you have double-irrefutable proof. All signs are good in my opinion. We have to assume CAS is independent and decide based on the facts, and not on emails in which options were discussed. Talking about a deed is not punishable, only doing it, and if we can prove we have not actually done it, then we must be home and safe.If they paid it to us like that then yes.
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
Is it possible that Cerefin really wants to break the grip of the G14? It is well known that he has been to the Etihad on more than one occasion. 'Failing' to screw City and even showing that FFP is 'wrong' would give him a huge amount of ammunition to revamp UEFA into his mould.
They do and I have no problem that they do either, but from an accounts point of view, and especially FFP is looks very dodgy.How so? UAE state stands behind the financial obligations of their state airline. When the UK had nationalised industries, that is how it would work.
FFP in my opinion is restriction of trade, stopping investment in business should never be allowed, BUT, we signed up for it.
Jazzman
Well-Known Member
I think Ceferin is a politician, and is looking for a way to win, no matter the outcome of this case. Indeed it would appear he could take advantage of both outcomes. But being a politician I don't think he cares who wins, he only cares for himself. He will side with whatever he thinks is the best.Is it possible that Cerefin really wants to break the grip of the G14? It is well known that he has been to the Etihad on more than one occasion. 'Failing' to screw City and even showing that FFP is 'wrong' would give him a huge amount of ammunition to revamp UEFA into his mould.
That's what the emails imply, but the accounts are the deciding factor for CAS I would have thought.Why would we do that though.
No , but if Etihad pay 8m and Abu Dhabi pay the rest in any name or form we have.
As often happens in this debate, the legal obligation gets confused with the cashflow. There is nothing wrong or creative in a parent company settling the obligation of a subsidiary - happens frequently. Can create inter company balances or loans around a group. There may be specific related party rules either under the relevant accounting rules or under FFP but it doesn't (without good foundation) override the legal contract. If related under FFP, UEFA look at fair value of the contract - it still doesn't change the actual contract rather it adjusts the amount that is entered into the calculation. So if there is a legal contract between MCFC and Etihad for E to pay £50m a year, they pay us £50m and the cash arrives from 2 payments - one of £8m and one of £42m, and we record it as £50m a year coming from Etihad that is neither creative or wrong. If on the other hand the contract says its £8m pa but we record £50m, that is, of course a different matter.
Last edited:
They do and I have no problem that they do either, but from an accounts point of view, and especially FFP is looks very dodgy.
FFP in my opinion is restriction of trade, stopping investment in business should never be allowed, BUT, we signed up for it.
It's the tone of the email extracts that make it appear "dodgy" and not the settlement of the legal obligation itself.
But Etihad have stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”“Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”
nmc
Well-Known Member
It's the tone of the email extracts that make it appear "dodgy" and not the settlement of the legal obligation itself.
But Etihad have stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”“Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”
The quote re Etihad is unequivocal and is backed up by audited accounts - so how can UEFA -with senior judges on the AC - find us guilty ? Something doesn’t fit.
Well let's hope that is the irrefutable evidence, if it is we should have no worries.It's the tone of the email extracts that make it appear "dodgy" and not the settlement of the legal obligation itself.
But Etihad have stated unequivocally: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”“Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Yep, somebody will crack before the official announcement.
I honestly think it will become clearer in the next few days as there is no way they will be able to contain themselves if the decision has gone against us in any way, or they will do as Rob Harris did the other day and start to put forward how if we are cleared that we have somehow circumnavigated the rules and ‘got away it’, hoping to see more of the latter by Wednesday/Thursday.
Don’t suppose anyone has Khaldoon’s email address, we could just send him a cheeky email and ask ;)
P.s. Obviously liverpool employees will have our chairman’s email and associated emails, but only want City fans replying.
bigbossman@cityfootballgroup.com
Emails? they were the reason this was reopened.The quote re Etihad is unequivocal and is backed up by audited accounts - so how can UEFA -with senior judges on the AC - find us guilty ? Something doesn’t fit.
It's changed, it's now thecoolmotherfucker@city
Any more news mate ? I’ve took this week off work and I can’t even relax for one minute lol
Centurions
Well-Known Member
That's why we're heading for 4,000 pages in this thread, UEFA have stated that they've accused us of misleading them and of lack of cooperation. The trouble is we don't know what we're supposed to have mislead them about. I'd hazard a guess that the lack of cooperation is that we refused to discuss the hacked emails, although that is only my guess.The quote re Etihad is unequivocal and is backed up by audited accounts - so how can UEFA -with senior judges on the AC - find us guilty ? Something doesn’t fit.
Good question. If answer is no, then it looks good for us.But did they? Did City's evidence get a hearing there? The IC and the AC are two cheeks of the same arse as far as I can make out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.