Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

[nmc]

I’m not sure whether we can get access as part of the UEFA investigation but as part of any appeal to CAS - (or other formal legal proceedings) there’d be a full process of legal disclosure - and hopefully City could get insight into the full volume of emails. Surely we could ask to see whatever UEFA have on the basis that if they are being selective in pursuing us... but ignoring other transgressions (by other teams) then that would amount to unfair and inconsistent application of their rules. I’d be certain there must be other issues - but they seem to have sifted the millions of emails to exclusively unearth dirt on us - i’d hope that City’s legal team will be asking for evidence of them investigating the emails for transgressions by others... in line with what they have done for us... It might be that we can demonstrate a clear case of us being targeted and UEFAs actions are wholly discriminatory and disproportionate.

 

[aguero93:20]

I’m not sure whether we can get access as part of the UEFA investigation but as part of any appeal to CAS - (or other formal legal proceedings) there’d be a full process of legal disclosure - and hopefully City could get insight into the full volume of emails. Surely we could ask to see whatever UEFA have on the basis that if they are being selective in pursuing us... but ignoring other transgressions (by other teams) then that would amount to unfair and inconsistent application of their rules. I’d be certain there must be other issues - but they seem to have sifted the millions of emails to exclusively unearth dirt on us - i’d hope that City’s legal team will be asking for evidence of them investigating the emails for transgressions by others... in line with what they have done for us... It might be that we can demonstrate a clear case of us being targeted and UEFAs actions are wholly discriminatory and disproportionate.

UEFA don't have any emails. Der Spiegel have written narrative editorial pieces claiming to have seen emails. Big difference and it's why there's nothing in this. UEFA are acting on hearsay, unless they have hard copies of emails that they can prove are genuine (and in the vast majority of cases, obtained legally).

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

UEFA don't have any emails. Der Spiegel have written narrative editorial pieces claiming to have seen emails. Big difference and it's why there's nothing in this. UEFA are acting on hearsay, unless they have hard copies of emails that they can prove are genuine (and in the vast majority of cases, obtained legally).

I asked this before in one or other of the threads Aguero, and I think it beggars belief that UEFA have allowed this to be pushed so far, if all they have is third hand selective information with no context.
Information that was stolen too.

None of it makes sense, that they can be so bullish on such flimsy evidence.

There either is more than we have heard or they want us to have this stuff buried or they really are so arrogant that they think they can do what they like in a private boys club.

Whatever the outcome I do think there will be a few surprises along the way.

 

[aguero93:20]

I asked this before in one or other of the threads Aguero, and I think it beggars belief that UEFA have allowed this to be pushed so far, if all they have is third hand selective information with no context.
Information that was stolen too.

None of it makes sense, that they can be so bullish on such flimsy evidence.

There either is more than we have heard or they want us to have this stuff buried or they really are so arrogant that they think they can do what they like in a private boys club.

Whatever the outcome I do think there will be a few surprises along the way.

Arrogant. They've already broken their own rules several times yet expect to get away with it.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

FYI, they did change the rules in 2015. From UEFA site:

Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party.

Back in 14/15 our turnover was c£351k so if UAE commercial income >£105k (30%) it could still be treated as not a related party for the purpose of our accounts BUT treated as a related party for the FFP assessment and subject to FMV assessment.

If the regulations were changed in 2015 then they couldn’t apply to 2014/15 accounts as regulations generally don’t apply retrospectively.

 

[nmc]

UEFA don't have any emails. Der Spiegel have written narrative editorial pieces claiming to have seen emails. Big difference and it's why there's nothing in this. UEFA are acting on hearsay, unless they have hard copies of emails that they can prove are genuine (and in the vast majority of cases, obtained legally).

On that basis we can just deny everything ! They are effectively the prosecutor so they have to make a case against us - which if they don’t have any evidence they are completely unable to do.

 

[aguero93:20]

On that basis we can just deny everything ! They are effectively the prosecutor so they have to make a case against us - which if they don’t have any evidence they are completely unable to do.

Yeah but our Johann said...

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I asked this before in one or other of the threads Aguero, and I think it beggars belief that UEFA have allowed this to be pushed so far, if all they have is third hand selective information with no context.
Information that was stolen too.

None of it makes sense, that they can be so bullish on such flimsy evidence.

There either is more than we have heard or they want us to have this stuff buried or they really are so arrogant that they think they can do what they like in a private boys club.

Whatever the outcome I do think there will be a few surprises along the way.

The narrative has been set by the media, and the only possible outcomes being pedalled are that we are either guilty or ‘guilty but got away with it’. UEFA presumably are anxious not to be seen as the spineless jellyfish, who let Manchester City off, and given that they are also doubtless being pressurised by, or are actively in cahoots with, representatives of the old guard, I’d imagine they’ll be keen to offload our case onto CAS, irrespective of whether there is any actual evidence to suggest we’ve broken the rules or not.

 

[WesthoughtonJohn]

Finally, the club has done nothing which is forbidden by the form of words of the regulations. "If the process is to be judged on facts then unquestionably we will prevail: if its not to be judged by facts ... then its a quite different conversation."

From a complete layman's perspective, this part of the interview stands out on relation to our case.

I think, and I have probably mentioned this elsewhere, we've reached that point in this process where we're saying we've had enough.

As a club we've tried to play nicely while getting where we are - but you just won't let it go, BIG mistake.

I also found Khaldoons interview interesting in reiterating our position in terms of spend on individuals - we aren't driving the market, other than setting standards others are struggling to match

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

If the regulations were changed in 2015 then they couldn’t apply to 2014/15 accounts as regulations generally don’t apply retrospectively.

Yes, I understand that. Remember this is UEFA we are talking about and they did retrospectively change the pre-contract exemption to our detriment.

Also, UEFA published our settlement in May 14 and we were under close scrutiny thereafter and in regular contact with UEFA. As we were in disagreement about the commerical income (related/non related etc) with UEFA, I'm sure the change of rules was of no surprise to City whatsoever. Furthermore, we might have even agreed with it because it wouldn't impact our progress and UEFA were seen to be doing something for G14.

 

[aguero93:20]

Yes, I understand that. Remember this is UEFA we are talking about and they did retrospectively change the pre-contract exemption to our detriment.

Also, UEFA published our settlement in May 14 and we were under close scrutiny thereafter and in regular contact with UEFA. As we were in disagreement about the commerical income (related/non related etc) with UEFA, I'm sure the change of rules was of no surprise to City whatsoever. Furthermore, we might have even agreed with it because it wouldn't impact our progress and UEFA were seen to be doing something for G14.

Even if we agreed to the new definition it still can't apply retrospectively.

 

[VOOMER]

An interesting, (WARNING!)...but long read, about Rui Pinto (aka "John") in the New Yorker. We come in for only a brief mention...some very interesting stuff on Benfica and the Ronaldo alleged rape case. His background, possible motivations etc are all laid bare. Should be very interesting to see how it all pans out in the courts...will he be treated as a whistleblower or do time for alleged extortion etc.....loved the bit about the allegedly corrupt 8 refs ( "The Priests" )in Portugal who "looked after" Benfica.




this is nothing more than a puff piece he's a hacker for hire

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

The New Yorker piece is an interesting read well worth the effort. It answered a few questions i had previously. The bottom lines are:
Uefa don't have any emails, currently it seems the French Police have a copy of a large selection, the Portuguese Police have all the hard drives and Der Spiegel have a copy of most of them. I am unsure if they have requested copies from Der Spiegel and where they would stand legally with the posession of stolen material. They are not a court remember.
It would seem that the information in the emails is transposed using a specific software programme that turns the emails into text which is search enabled. I'm not sure they can reproduce the emails in the format they were created in. They can however with documents.
It would seem we have indeed been referred for sanction based on the absolute flimsiest of evidence in an online newspaper and their subsequent shit investigation process and hurried referral. Incredible really!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

The New Yorker piece is an interesting read well worth the effort. It answered a few questions i had previously. The bottom lines are:
Uefa don't have any emails, currently it seems the French Police have a copy of a large selection, the Portuguese Police have all the hard drives and Der Spiegel have a copy of most of them. I am unsure if they have requested copies from Der Spiegel and where they would stand legally with the posession of stolen material. They are not a court remember.
It would seem that the information in the emails is transposed using a specific software programme that turns the emails into text which is search enabled. I'm not sure they can reproduce the emails in the format they were created in. They can however with documents.
It would seem we have indeed been referred for sanction based on the absolute flimsiest of evidence in an online newspaper and their subsequent shit investigation process and hurried referral. Incredible really!

It's a dark black corner for the governing bodies, fucked if they do, fucked if they don't.

If and I think it is, your comments are correct they're going to get slaughtered and lose any semblance of being credible, I do wonder if the end game will be the authorities themselves outing the clubs that were pushing them to take action, as we all know there's fuck all honour amongst the lot of them & survival instinct will take over.

 

[lust overlord]

It's a dark black corner for the governing bodies, fucked if they do, fucked if they don't.

If and I think it is, your comments are correct they're going to get slaughtered and lose any semblance of being credible, I do wonder if the end game will be the authorities themselves outing the clubs that were pushing them to take action, as we all know there's fuck all honour amongst the lot of them & survival instinct will take over.

Maybe,can't see it personally.

Can see us" getting off" on a technicality though.
This serves two purposes,1 we "get away" with the charges because we've exploited loopholes,broke the spirit of the rules rather than the legal.
2, This still allows enough grey areas for our opponents to tarnish any success we have.
The story will still run and organisations and individuals will still come after us for a time.
Most will get bored and move on to the next big thing.

There's far too many vested interests for uefa to risk a decisive defeat.

 

[caseball]

i laughed out loud reading the New Yorker piece. Don't these people ever step back from their work to look at it? The English hacks are pumping out lies by the dozen and I get the feeling that they are about as literate as they are honest but you'd expect a bit more awareness from a weekly magazine. The article's about 9000 words long and mentions City 6 times: once near the start about 'likely rule-breaking' and 4 times near the end, 3 of which are about the allegations in Der Spiegel of 'likely rule-breaking' and 1 about City's rebuttal of these allegations. Then, after all the stories of rape, lies, theft, clandestine meetings, match-fixing, political corruption, threats on lives, tax evasion, sinister strangers, coverups and who knows what else, this made me LOL...

'The following month, uefa announced that, as a result of the Spiegel coverage, it was investigating Manchester City, the newly crowned English Premier League champions, for breaking its financial rules.' Oh no, we've broken a rule.

It's called bathos. The fucking clowns.

 

[Sir peace frog]

having read that NYT article, seems the leaks are responsible for a lot of stuff that has been proved to be accurate ,Ronaldo, Benfica , ect ect ,we want to believe the leaks when it tells us united payed 105m for Pogba and his agent received 49m ,but we don't want to believe it when its against us. im sure the truth will come out.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I don't doubt that what has been printed in Der Spiegel may be approximate truth. You will note that the Criminal evidence referred to comes from reproduced documents. As far as I can see the only allegation that infers information not already known that implies rule breaking is the alleged supplementing of Etihads sponsorship by ADUG. This alleged rule breaking seemingly achieved nothing as we still failed the 3 year break even test in 2014 and were punished.

Now it seems despite being allegedly closely monitored they may insinuate that such a leverage to the accounts in 2015 onwards would have brought about further failures but only if what would now be a related party was marked down sufficiently. Our income was rising significantly at this time as well from none UAE sponsorship sources. Also wouldn't this again challenge the Etihads deal status within the accounts as none party related? Are they really going to call our accountants liars and our audited accounts, falsified. Now that is alleging criminal activity! It's a massive (if i may) can of worms going down that route.

 

[VOOMER]

having read that NYT article, seems the leaks are responsible for a lot of stuff that has been proved to be accurate ,Ronaldo, Benfica , ect ect ,we want to believe the leaks when it tells us united payed 105m for Pogba and his agent received 49m ,but we don't want to believe it when its against us. im sure the truth will come out.

Until I've been able to read through everything that was leaked, I won't base my opinion on yet another selective piece.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

having read that NYT article, seems the leaks are responsible for a lot of stuff that has been proved to be accurate ,Ronaldo, Benfica , ect ect ,we want to believe the leaks when it tells us united payed 105m for Pogba and his agent received 49m ,but we don't want to believe it when its against us. im sure the truth will come out.

I'm out of the loop but did the Cristiano Ronaldo rape stuff prove to be accurate?