UEFA FFP investigation into 2014 filings - Case Hearing reportedly delayed till New year (The Times)

Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by razman, 7 Mar 2019.

  1. CharliesRightPeg

    CharliesRightPeg

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2015
    Messages:
    332
    Tbh he wrote this about a year ago
    Hence why Mourinho's utd was treated differently to Ole's by refs etc
    Also pgmol seem to be working for a group of agents with links to owners of clubs who also own bookies
     
    squirtyflower and Balijatelli like this.
  2. rowarta

    rowarta

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    1,501
    Led by David Icke
     
    Paladin and Balijatelli like this.
  3. CharliesRightPeg

    CharliesRightPeg

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2015
    Messages:
    332
    Who according to a well know poster has worked for City in the past obtaining information about refs manipulation of games ending in the removal of 3 refs from the UK listing back in 2011/12 if I remember right
     
    mattcity5 likes this.
  4. Dave Ewing's Back 'eader

    Dave Ewing's Back 'eader

    Joined:
    9 Mar 2007
    Messages:
    45,991
    Location:
    Upwind of the Mangrove Swamp
    But the Dipper open-topped omnibus parade will beat all of 'em!
     
  5. Colin Bells Boots

    Colin Bells Boots

    Joined:
    31 May 2016
    Messages:
    6,686
     
  6. keith's curle

    keith's curle

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2014
    Messages:
    628
    Sorry PB, I'm certainly not questioning you're knowledge as you clearly understand this better than I ever could, but this bit is confusing me:

    I thought this was the whole crux of the matter. In short, if ADUG had paid some of the sponsorship then it's money that the club's owner is putting in, which isn't allowed. Isn't this the accusation, whereas if it's the airline owner paying the airline's bill instead of ADUG then that's OK.

    Maybe I've just followed this thing round in so many circles my head is spinning and I'm about to be committed to an institution...
     
  7. citizen_maine

    citizen_maine

    Joined:
    29 May 2011
    Messages:
    1,705
    a related party is allowed to sponsor us, but that sponsorship falls liable to a 'fair value' test. As the amount of the sponsorship was deemed fair value, then it doesn't matter who paid it?
     
    keith's curle likes this.
  8. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    48,773
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    Sorry. I wasn't quite clear enough before.

    Owners are allowed to inject money into clubs via sponsorships from what are deemed to be 'related parties' (companies they're connected to) but those sponsorships have to be what UEFA regard as market value. That is what they consider an unconnected party would pay. Any excess over market value isn't allowed to be declared as revenue for FFP purposes. We can keep the money but have to knock it off our declared revenue when we submit our FFP calculations.

    So if Etihad give us £65m a year for the shirt, stadium and campus naming rights that's probably market value when compared to similar deals at equivalent clubs. If they gave us £150m a year, that probably wouldn't be However we have denied that Etihad is a related party, which I believe UEFA accepted. Therefore they could give us £150m and we could use the full amount under FFP. The problem is that the owner can't inject undeclared funds through a unrelated party.

    The question is whether ADUG did themselves provide the additional funding to Etihad, to enable them to meet their commitment and, if so, whether UEFA could prove that. If ADUG were stupid enough to send a separate payment direct to City then they'd be bang to rights but I doubt that would have happened. If ADUG were providing the funds then they would have given them to Etihad first. But the other question is whether ADUG did provide the funds or arrange for someone else to do so. My understanding is that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council themselves provided the Etihad sponsorship money. They admitted this a few years ago as part of a submission when they were fighting an 'Open Skies' complaint from the US over state support for airlines in the Gulf.

    Sheikh Mansour doesn't sit on the ADEC but Khaldoon does so there's a link and a possible reason to declare that the ADEC is a related party. But then we're still in the clear as long as the sponsorship is considered to be market value. For me, the easiest way out of this is to accept that Etihad is a related party. Then UEFA have nothing on us.
     
    Gorton_Tubster likes this.
  9. squirtyflower

    squirtyflower

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2009
    Messages:
    54,723
    Location:
    Listening to Danamy
    The whole sordid affair is an attempt to discredit Gestifute, arranged and paid for by the criminal element of the four ‘super’ agencies created in England. These same agents are linked to the betting scams by PGMOL and players of the agents. The ‘war’ is deeper than many realise.
     
    Bilboblue and CharliesRightPeg like this.
  10. squirtyflower

    squirtyflower

    Joined:
    30 Mar 2009
    Messages:
    54,723
    Location:
    Listening to Danamy
    Yes the conspiracy nutter hired by Manchester City Football Club in 2010 that eventually led to the removal of certain refs from our games and refs suddenly leaving the profession in 2012.
     
    mcfc1632, mat, BrianW and 2 others like this.

Share This Page