"Does Abramovitch own an international airline, serving every continent, that also sponsors an F1 Grand Prix, a RU team and a huge stadium in Australia?"

You said RA will just get one of his companies to sponsor Chelsea, I'm just asking iif he, or his mates own a company with an international profile that will appease UEFA. Will any of those companies present a long term plan to invest £1 Billion into the local infrastucture?

International Profile is irrelevant. Its all about fair value. The real question is are UEFA going to be serious about these rules or aren't they (and I don't know the answer to that). I don't think there is a person alive who believes that an unconnected company would have offered City half what Etihad did purely on commercial grounds.
I don't think anyone has a clue what is going to happen and that includes City's board, but they have to try because they have to erradicate a 120m annual deficit somehow.

Value for money, that's what it's all about and Eithad are not there to make a loss.

If City have an '£120m annual deficit', do United have a £700m annual debt?

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

art 58.4, fair value, nothing to do with value for money

And no United run at a profit, having a capital debt is irrelevant.

"A related party transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair
value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled,
between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An
arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length
basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the
arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no related party
relationship."

That is the clause which will be tested. In other words, would any other party have paid what Etihad did if there were no connection between the parties.

I am interested in this not only as a football fan but also as a lawyer (sad as I am).

I would say the burden of proof is on City to show that other (unconnected) parties would have offered a similar amount.

The other clubs are already having their say.

City would have run at a profit if they hadn't replaced practically the whole squad in the space of 5 transfer windows - Something that wouldn't be repeated with or without the FFP rules.

All transfer fees are spread over the length of the respective contracts so all new players are included until their initial contracts come to an end.
So virtually the whole squad's transfer fees will be incuded this time next year.

You seem to be confusing the statutes of law with arbitary rules that are being laid down by a self-governing body.

If UEFA want to go down this line then all sponsorship deals should be decided by public auction with no American companies being allowed to bid on United, no Russian firms on Chelsea etc.

If it was found that any member of the extended Glazer family owned as much as one share in AON then that deal should be scraped forthwith.

Boris, I am sorry to say this but you have no idea what you are talking about. The FFP Rules are basically a contract which is legally binding and has the full force of international law. As an international lawyer I can assure you I am not confused about anything. It is the entry requirements for UEFA competitions. If City don't want to enter them, they don't have to comply with the rules but if they do want to enter they have to comply with the rules, very simple really. Its how the rules are interpreted that is important and that could very well end up in court if UEFA decide to interpret them strictly.

You're the one using terms like 'Burden of Proof'. City haven't been charged with anything, UEFA said they will look at the details of the deal.

Garry Cook has said all along that UEFA were consulted on a weekly basis as the deal progressed and I doubt there would have been such a fanfare if the deal was in any doubt.

The shirt deal is worth less than Liverpools and the Stadium deal is comparable to other deals in Europe, especially Germany.

Another misnomer is the phrase FFP Rules, they are guidelines at the moment and won't be fully implemented for another 3 years. There was a piece in the Guardian the other day saying that Real Madrid and Barca may ignore them completely in the knowledge that UEFA would never exclude them from European competition. If that were the case and they tried to ban City then expect years of injunctions and litigation.

what choice do City have but to do what they did and hope it is enough. You can get your information from the newspapers if you want, but I assure you they are rules, not guidelines
just read them it makes interesting reading (if you are sad like me) http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Madrid and Barca may struggle to comply with them but Platini has staked his reputation on these rules, it will be interesting times ahead.

These regulations come into force on 1 June 2010 with the exception of
a) Articles 35, 53 to 56 and 64 to 68, which enter into force on 1 June 2011;
b) Articles 57 to 63, which enter into force for the financial statements of the
reporting period ending in 2012, as specified in Article 59(2).

Platini will be head of FIFA in 4 years time, his successor will be left to unravel the mess.

As for the wording of the rules which I certainly won't be ploughing through on a Saturday afternoon, isn't there a section where clubs are appraised by year-on-year improvements?

there are an awful lot of requirements but I think City are fine with all of them except maybe fair value.
And yes you could well be right about Platini, maybe even sooner.