“It was at above fair market value, so they’ll still fail the calculations.”
But that’s a separate argument from the one being discussed here. The issue is who actually funded the sponsorship payments, not whether the deals were ultimately judged to be above fair market value. What City said to CAS, or what was said back in 2015, doesn’t prove what actually happened. The physical evidence does: bank records, transfers, contracts and the paper trail showing where the money came from.
They may well still lose on at least two categories, but the big one is the sponsorship issue. That’s the one that could determine whether they get the book thrown at them or receive a much lighter punishment. So I wouldn’t dismiss the appeal simply because City previously said something different. The question is what the paper trail shows and what the Appeal Board makes of it.
_____________________________
React below 👇
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
