comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is inflating revenue ffs. A company's revenue is determined by the amount of money it brings in from business activities.
This sponsorship with Etihad is classed as revenue from business activity.
If it came directly from a shareholder it would be classed differently.
So while the amounts of money will be the same, where it comes from is key to determining whether revenue was overstated.
It is clear, if the emails are correct, that revenue was indeed overstated.
This allowed man city to a) get around ffp and b) show the business operations as being healthier than they are.
Obviously the way the city owners and etihad are linked has made it possible for this to occur.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it depends where the money comes from directly to City. If it doesn’t come directly from Etihad in the accounts then we have misled Uefa. In terms of Etihad though, Uefa can’t investigate them, they have no jurisdiction to. That’s why this is all very messy.
It’s also why I have a feeling this won’t just stop at CAS, the club statement indicates it won’t either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s been well publicised that £59m cake from Sheikh Mansour and £8m cake from Etihad.
Yes, it’s also been well publicised that Etihad denied that. Even so though, that still doesn’t make it fraudulent as it depends what both companies actually declared. I don’t know Etihads books enough to answer it, which is why it’s a wait and see til it gets to CAS
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is inflating revenue ffs. A company's revenue is determined by the amount of money it brings in from business activities.
This sponsorship with Etihad is classed as revenue from business activity.
If it came directly from a shareholder it would be classed differently.
So while the amounts of money will be the same, where it comes from is key to determining whether revenue was overstated.
It is clear, if the emails are correct, that revenue was indeed overstated.
This allowed man city to a) get around ffp and b) show the business operations as being healthier than they are.
Obviously the way the city owners and etihad are linked has made it possible for this to occur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes here, but as long as the figures declared in the accounts add up to the same as the figure received, then it is not overstating revenue. I’m talking in legal and accounting terms here. If you’re arguing it’s dodgy, then yes, I’ve said that already.
Money from business operations was overstated. Ie business revenue.
The figures would be the same, but where it came from is the key.
Would you buy a business that showed revenue of 59m where the 59m was put in by the owner? Would you heck.
It's not sustainable.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is inflating revenue ffs. A company's revenue is determined by the amount of money it brings in from business activities.
This sponsorship with Etihad is classed as revenue from business activity.
If it came directly from a shareholder it would be classed differently.
So while the amounts of money will be the same, where it comes from is key to determining whether revenue was overstated.
It is clear, if the emails are correct, that revenue was indeed overstated.
This allowed man city to a) get around ffp and b) show the business operations as being healthier than they are.
Obviously the way the city owners and etihad are linked has made it possible for this to occur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes here, but as long as the figures declared in the accounts add up to the same as the figure received, then it is not overstating revenue. I’m talking in legal and accounting terms here. If you’re arguing it’s dodgy, then yes, I’ve said that already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Etihad & City's owners have declared they’ve sponsored City for £67m pa but haven’t mentioned City’s owners are contributing £59m of it of course it’s overstating revenue.
No, of course it isn’t. The revenue is the same regardless of who pays it, clearly. What you are saying is true if they declared less.
If that is the case then like i said, we’ve got far more worries than Uefa!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 seconds ago
No, of course it isn’t. The revenue is the same regardless of who pays it, clearly. What you are saying is true if they declared less.
If that is the case then like i said, we’ve got far more worries than Uefa!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about?
If City declares to UEFA their sponsorship with Etihad is £67m and City’s owners are contributing £59m of that then of course it’s overrating revenue.
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
No it isnt, all the money is in the books. But as per FFP the money that can be used for spending on players has to come from certain sources. And part of the money came from a source not allowed by FFP. But that source is still a legal source in terms of accounting / business.
The owner can pump as much money as he wants into this own business. FFP says that City cant use that money to buy players.
Nothing illegal or fraudulent about it in business terms, if you know what I mean.
My comment was directed at Fannieroads
Now the issue with the emails is there’s two conflicting ones as to the route of the money. That’s going to be very difficult for Uefa to prove which one is right. It should be easy for us to prove but then it does beg the question why we haven’t already, at least in the eyes of
Uefa.
comment by Holland's big brother Europe (U1250)
posted 4 minutes ago
No it isnt, all the money is in the books. But as per FFP the money that can be used for spending on players has to come from certain sources. And part of the money came from a source not allowed by FFP. But that source is still a legal source in terms of accounting / business.
The owner can pump as much money as he wants into this own business. FFP says that City cant use that money to buy players.
Nothing illegal or fraudulent about it in business terms, if you know what I mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not talking ‘in business terms’ as far as illegality is concerned. I’m talking about in terms of FFP.
The source is allowed from FFP, as it wasn’t declared a related party.
We’re getting even messier then though with the detail!
We’ve all just got to wait for CAS as then it will all come out publicly either way.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, because it’s not fraudulent. The allegation is that we misled Uefa. It still doesn’t make it in anyway fraudulent though. If it did, then we’d have a lot worse things to worry about than Uefa (as would our auditors, PWC)
Like I said earlier, don’t make it into something it’s not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the post above you said it was "potentially fraudulent" and now its definitely not fraudulent?
Also, the allegation is that you misled UEFA as pertains to the source of the funds. ie. That the funds came from your owner instead of a sponsor which is against FFP and would would include the making of false financial statements some of which could amount to fraud.
Also, looking at the article you linked and others over the last few years, I'd say City should have a lot more to worry about than UEFA alone IMO. Whether that comes to pass is another issue.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
Also, looking at the article you linked and others over the last few years, I'd say City should have a lot more to worry about than UEFA alone IMO.
-------
Reckon so if there are accounting irregularities.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, because it’s not fraudulent. The allegation is that we misled Uefa. It still doesn’t make it in anyway fraudulent though. If it did, then we’d have a lot worse things to worry about than Uefa (as would our auditors, PWC)
Like I said earlier, don’t make it into something it’s not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the post above you said it was "potentially fraudulent" and now its definitely not fraudulent?
Also, the allegation is that you misled UEFA as pertains to the source of the funds. ie. That the funds came from your owner instead of a sponsor which is against FFP and would would include the making of false financial statements some of which could amount to fraud.
Also, looking at the article you linked and others over the last few years, I'd say City should have a lot more to worry about than UEFA alone IMO. Whether that comes to pass is another issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your analogy isn’t fraudulent, it doesn’t prove it either way.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
They keep saying it is though
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the owner of man city paying out 59m of his own money to go to man city is not an injection of shareholder cash?
What is it then?
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the owner of man city paying out 59m of his own money to go to man city is not an injection of shareholder cash?
What is it then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it even matter what its called really? He paid out this money and represented himself to the world as if he didn't which cannot happen without fraudulent acts taking place.
The only question is to what extent it can be proven IMO.
I’ve no idea yet, that’s the point! If it was injection of shareholder cash then that would have just been increasing the number of shares and injecting in more equity. That’s a completely different line on the books.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the owner of man city paying out 59m of his own money to go to man city is not an injection of shareholder cash?
What is it then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it even matter what its called really? He paid out this money and represented himself to the world as if he didn't which cannot happen without fraudulent acts taking place.
The only question is to what extent it can be proven IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it can absolutely happen without fraudulent acts happening. You’re absolutely right if there were fraudulent acts we’d be in a lot more trouble with Uefa (as would our accountants).
Given if that did happen that Uefa would have to give that evidence to the FCA though, evidence that was made public at the time anyway , I’m surprised we’ve gone two years since it all came out without anything happening though if that was the case.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’ve no idea yet, that’s the point! If it was injection of shareholder cash then that would have just been increasing the number of shares and injecting in more equity. That’s a completely different line on the books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What it wouldnt be is revenue from sponsorship.
That much is clear.
Man city owner having to put 59m of his own money in to shore up the hole in sponsorship is certainly one to get alarm bells ringing.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Sheiks Extended family finances
Page 8 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 17/2/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is inflating revenue ffs. A company's revenue is determined by the amount of money it brings in from business activities.
This sponsorship with Etihad is classed as revenue from business activity.
If it came directly from a shareholder it would be classed differently.
So while the amounts of money will be the same, where it comes from is key to determining whether revenue was overstated.
It is clear, if the emails are correct, that revenue was indeed overstated.
This allowed man city to a) get around ffp and b) show the business operations as being healthier than they are.
Obviously the way the city owners and etihad are linked has made it possible for this to occur.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it depends where the money comes from directly to City. If it doesn’t come directly from Etihad in the accounts then we have misled Uefa. In terms of Etihad though, Uefa can’t investigate them, they have no jurisdiction to. That’s why this is all very messy.
It’s also why I have a feeling this won’t just stop at CAS, the club statement indicates it won’t either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s been well publicised that £59m cake from Sheikh Mansour and £8m cake from Etihad.
posted on 17/2/20
Yes, it’s also been well publicised that Etihad denied that. Even so though, that still doesn’t make it fraudulent as it depends what both companies actually declared. I don’t know Etihads books enough to answer it, which is why it’s a wait and see til it gets to CAS
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is inflating revenue ffs. A company's revenue is determined by the amount of money it brings in from business activities.
This sponsorship with Etihad is classed as revenue from business activity.
If it came directly from a shareholder it would be classed differently.
So while the amounts of money will be the same, where it comes from is key to determining whether revenue was overstated.
It is clear, if the emails are correct, that revenue was indeed overstated.
This allowed man city to a) get around ffp and b) show the business operations as being healthier than they are.
Obviously the way the city owners and etihad are linked has made it possible for this to occur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes here, but as long as the figures declared in the accounts add up to the same as the figure received, then it is not overstating revenue. I’m talking in legal and accounting terms here. If you’re arguing it’s dodgy, then yes, I’ve said that already.
posted on 17/2/20
Money from business operations was overstated. Ie business revenue.
The figures would be the same, but where it came from is the key.
Would you buy a business that showed revenue of 59m where the 59m was put in by the owner? Would you heck.
It's not sustainable.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 18 minutes ago
Why did the Sheikh contribute £59m of his company’s money towards the sponsorship deal, with the actual sponsors only contributing £8m themselves?
It’d be like FSG paying for the sponsorship and Standard Chartered paying a nominal fee. Ok yeah slight difference being FSG and SC are not run by the same entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows yet, but I imagine the main argument that City will use is that he didn’t and even if he did, it’s none of Uefas business. In terms of why he (or someone) did, then to subsidise Etihad essentially. The AD government has been subsidising them for years, that’s what the open skies case was all about.
Just to be clear specifically on the Etihad deal, the accusation is not that City’s accounts show a different figure to the money received. If it did, that would be inflating revenue, which this isn’t. I’ve said a few times it’s a non sequitur, people need to stop saying it. There are other allegations that that may be relevant for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it non of UEFA’s business? If the allegations are true then basically City’s owners have sponsored themselves to boost club coffers and circumnavigate FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is inflating revenue ffs. A company's revenue is determined by the amount of money it brings in from business activities.
This sponsorship with Etihad is classed as revenue from business activity.
If it came directly from a shareholder it would be classed differently.
So while the amounts of money will be the same, where it comes from is key to determining whether revenue was overstated.
It is clear, if the emails are correct, that revenue was indeed overstated.
This allowed man city to a) get around ffp and b) show the business operations as being healthier than they are.
Obviously the way the city owners and etihad are linked has made it possible for this to occur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes here, but as long as the figures declared in the accounts add up to the same as the figure received, then it is not overstating revenue. I’m talking in legal and accounting terms here. If you’re arguing it’s dodgy, then yes, I’ve said that already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If Etihad & City's owners have declared they’ve sponsored City for £67m pa but haven’t mentioned City’s owners are contributing £59m of it of course it’s overstating revenue.
posted on 17/2/20
No, of course it isn’t. The revenue is the same regardless of who pays it, clearly. What you are saying is true if they declared less.
If that is the case then like i said, we’ve got far more worries than Uefa!
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 seconds ago
No, of course it isn’t. The revenue is the same regardless of who pays it, clearly. What you are saying is true if they declared less.
If that is the case then like i said, we’ve got far more worries than Uefa!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about?
If City declares to UEFA their sponsorship with Etihad is £67m and City’s owners are contributing £59m of that then of course it’s overrating revenue.
posted on 17/2/20
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
posted on 17/2/20
No it isnt, all the money is in the books. But as per FFP the money that can be used for spending on players has to come from certain sources. And part of the money came from a source not allowed by FFP. But that source is still a legal source in terms of accounting / business.
The owner can pump as much money as he wants into this own business. FFP says that City cant use that money to buy players.
Nothing illegal or fraudulent about it in business terms, if you know what I mean.
posted on 17/2/20
My comment was directed at Fannieroads
posted on 17/2/20
Now the issue with the emails is there’s two conflicting ones as to the route of the money. That’s going to be very difficult for Uefa to prove which one is right. It should be easy for us to prove but then it does beg the question why we haven’t already, at least in the eyes of
Uefa.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Holland's big brother Europe (U1250)
posted 4 minutes ago
No it isnt, all the money is in the books. But as per FFP the money that can be used for spending on players has to come from certain sources. And part of the money came from a source not allowed by FFP. But that source is still a legal source in terms of accounting / business.
The owner can pump as much money as he wants into this own business. FFP says that City cant use that money to buy players.
Nothing illegal or fraudulent about it in business terms, if you know what I mean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not talking ‘in business terms’ as far as illegality is concerned. I’m talking about in terms of FFP.
posted on 17/2/20
The source is allowed from FFP, as it wasn’t declared a related party.
We’re getting even messier then though with the detail!
We’ve all just got to wait for CAS as then it will all come out publicly either way.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, because it’s not fraudulent. The allegation is that we misled Uefa. It still doesn’t make it in anyway fraudulent though. If it did, then we’d have a lot worse things to worry about than Uefa (as would our auditors, PWC)
Like I said earlier, don’t make it into something it’s not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the post above you said it was "potentially fraudulent" and now its definitely not fraudulent?
Also, the allegation is that you misled UEFA as pertains to the source of the funds. ie. That the funds came from your owner instead of a sponsor which is against FFP and would would include the making of false financial statements some of which could amount to fraud.
Also, looking at the article you linked and others over the last few years, I'd say City should have a lot more to worry about than UEFA alone IMO. Whether that comes to pass is another issue.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
posted on 17/2/20
Also, looking at the article you linked and others over the last few years, I'd say City should have a lot more to worry about than UEFA alone IMO.
-------
Reckon so if there are accounting irregularities.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 25 minutes ago
Which company are you talking about, Etihad? If so, potentially yes, that wouldn’t have anything to do with City though, which is the point here.
-----
Hmm.
If it has nothing to do with City, then who does it have anything to do with?
I mean, since the money is coming from City's owner and the money is ending up at City, would that not mean that city's owner, Etihad and MCFC were all aware and complicit/abbetors in this fraudulent act? They all knew the real source of the money, didn't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, because it’s not fraudulent. The allegation is that we misled Uefa. It still doesn’t make it in anyway fraudulent though. If it did, then we’d have a lot worse things to worry about than Uefa (as would our auditors, PWC)
Like I said earlier, don’t make it into something it’s not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the post above you said it was "potentially fraudulent" and now its definitely not fraudulent?
Also, the allegation is that you misled UEFA as pertains to the source of the funds. ie. That the funds came from your owner instead of a sponsor which is against FFP and would would include the making of false financial statements some of which could amount to fraud.
Also, looking at the article you linked and others over the last few years, I'd say City should have a lot more to worry about than UEFA alone IMO. Whether that comes to pass is another issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your analogy isn’t fraudulent, it doesn’t prove it either way.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
posted on 17/2/20
They keep saying it is though
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the owner of man city paying out 59m of his own money to go to man city is not an injection of shareholder cash?
What is it then?
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the owner of man city paying out 59m of his own money to go to man city is not an injection of shareholder cash?
What is it then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it even matter what its called really? He paid out this money and represented himself to the world as if he didn't which cannot happen without fraudulent acts taking place.
The only question is to what extent it can be proven IMO.
posted on 17/2/20
I’ve no idea yet, that’s the point! If it was injection of shareholder cash then that would have just been increasing the number of shares and injecting in more equity. That’s a completely different line on the books.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
If I declare 67.5 million, then the accounts have to show 67.5 million. It they don’t then I am either understating or overstating revenue.
In terms of where it comes from, you then have to check the accounts of the other company to see if that was covered or not.
That’s why it’s messy, Uefa can only check our accounts, they can’t check Etihads or ADUGs. Etihad have publicly declared they are solely liable for the sponsorship money though so if it is not on their books as going out, then they are on very dodgy ground.
If that’s also the case, we are on dodgy ground because we misled Uefa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You cant class shareholder injections of cash as revenue.
The terminology I am using is as per company accounts.
So if City did report that money as company revenue rather than shareholder injection, they could well be done for inflating revenue too.
Hope they are as it seems clear from the email that is what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a shareholder injection at all though is it? That’s a completely separate line item.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the owner of man city paying out 59m of his own money to go to man city is not an injection of shareholder cash?
What is it then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it even matter what its called really? He paid out this money and represented himself to the world as if he didn't which cannot happen without fraudulent acts taking place.
The only question is to what extent it can be proven IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it can absolutely happen without fraudulent acts happening. You’re absolutely right if there were fraudulent acts we’d be in a lot more trouble with Uefa (as would our accountants).
Given if that did happen that Uefa would have to give that evidence to the FCA though, evidence that was made public at the time anyway , I’m surprised we’ve gone two years since it all came out without anything happening though if that was the case.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
I’ve no idea yet, that’s the point! If it was injection of shareholder cash then that would have just been increasing the number of shares and injecting in more equity. That’s a completely different line on the books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What it wouldnt be is revenue from sponsorship.
That much is clear.
Man city owner having to put 59m of his own money in to shore up the hole in sponsorship is certainly one to get alarm bells ringing.
Page 8 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10