The problem you'll have by taking on Leterme is the AC chamber has given a more severe sanction that the one year the IC was said to recommend.
You may be right simply because none of us knows for sure at this stage but I wouldn't put anything past a corrupt process run by a corrupt organisation like UEFA. Just look at some of the reported facts about the bias and corruption involved in the case:
- In December 2018 - three months before the start of the IC investigation - UEFA's Chief Investigator Yves Leterme publicly stated that City would be found guilty and banned from the Champions League. This proves that the case was pre-judged (irrespective of any evidence from City whether read or unread) and is one of City's main grievances in their appeal to CAS.
- In a flagrant case of conflict of interest the IC panel included Rick Parry, ex-CEO of Liverpool and self confessed lifelong Liverpool supporter.
- While the investigation was still in progress there were several leaks from someone within UEFA to the New York Times and Associated Press confirming that City would be found guilty and banned. Tariq Panja of the NYT has admitted the leaks came from within UEFA but of course won't name his source.
A slightly easier comparison is from Swiss Ramble.
As far as I'm aware there's no reason we'd need to hide it if we were a related party, UEFA quite happily passed it off as fair market value and related or not wouldn't affect that. We only failed at the time because of their own rules not being clear enough regarding which wages we could or couldn't disregard.I read this yesterday and I do wonder if we’ve maybe just tried to be a bit too clever with all this? The bit that stuck out, for me at least, was him (SR) saying that, even if the Etihad deal was deemed a related party City would NOT have failed ffp. Seems we are being done for saying the wrong thing but not for doing the wrong thing. I know deep down that can’t be right but.......
I read this yesterday and I do wonder if we’ve maybe just tried to be a bit too clever with all this? The bit that stuck out, for me at least, was him (SR) saying that, even if the Etihad deal was deemed a related party City would NOT have failed ffp. Seems we are being done for saying the wrong thing but not for doing the wrong thing. I know deep down that can’t be right but.......
Would you prefer that we left it up to our PR department to present our case to Delaney rather than let our eminent lawyers make our case to CAS?
I think the answer is no liability whatsoever.
The UEFA CFCB Procedural Rules state “Members of the CFCB are not liable for any action, decision or failure to act in
connection with proceedings before the CFCB.”
https://it.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/02/60/83/59/2608359_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Unless there’s a way around that. I’m assuming that means we can sue UEFA as a body, but not specific individuals within the two chambers?
That unfortunately reflects the present newspaper industry in the UK where proprietors use their newspapers to drive specific messages and themes - facts, balance and truth were sacrificed many years ago. You only had to read Good Times Bad Times by Harold Evans to see the immediate impact Murdoch had at the Times and how he twisted and manipulated the whole organisation. 40 years on I suggest its got a lot worse.
These three points do not invalidate the tenet of projectriver's post since all three refer ti the IC and the AC may have given City's submissions adequate consideration. I suspect they simply decided the emails were to be believed and nullified City's contentions.
A slightly easier comparison is from Swiss Ramble.
Not sure if this is correct or whether that would show we've done any wrong if it were true. Do they think City can just write "other income ;)" and not state where it came from? I sincerely doubt that.They found that 84% of ‘other commercial income’ reported by the club originated from sponsors based in Abu Dhabi. UEFA auditors reportedly found that three of the four contracts (telecommunications company Etisalat, investment firm Aabar, Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority)
Surely that's not correct, UEFA were already aware of those deals being related party and it's not like UEFA can't see what their value was each season.signed with companies from Abu Dhabi were overvalued – up to 80% higher than what was considered ‘fair value’ for the deals.
Someone appears to have tried to piggyback that tweet with their own spin on the facts.
Not sure if this is correct or whether that would show we've done any wrong if it were true. Do they think City can just write "other income ;)" and not state where it came from? I sincerely doubt that.
Surely that's not correct, UEFA were already aware of those deals being related party and it's not like UEFA can't see what their value was each season.
And all while their full financials remain hidden in the Cayman Islands where no one can scrutinise them properly.Just the £391.3m of debt...
I don't agree with that, the fact that they knew what was already declared as related party income, makes it easier for our arguments to work because we can dismiss half of the arguments in that tweet. They don't just take a club's word for it, we have a revenue and we show where it came from and it has to add up. There's no hiding millions extra being paid into the Abaar type deals I would have thought. Everything has to be shown to be coming from somewhere and they check for that surely? What I read was, we did overpay some of those deals but they spotted that immediately in the first review and all that was settled in 2014 thus nothing to do with the investigation or what City are accused of. City have stuck to the agreed value for those deals since then, as far as I know.The more of this that UEFA knew before the settlement the harder it is for any arguments to work. From what I can see, they disbelieved (or disagreed at best) with City's analysis (as they did with many other clubs), did their own calculations, showed City they had breached and decided to settle the matter with the agreement and a monitoring period/settlement regime. Not one article, journalist, source etc has yet identified what the City have actually been charged with or how it differed from matters covered in the settlement agreement and settlement regime.
Those examples I gave were to illustrate the deep rooted and quintessentially corrupt nature of UEFA and the consequent lack of a fair hearing and relates to my earlier contention that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the IC and the AC didn't read City's evidence in their defence because the case was pre-judged. They're eminently capable of anything as we saw, for example, with the underhand change in the application of Annex XI after City had submitted their accounts in 2014 which ensured City failed FFP.
In which case interested parties could drip feed money into the rags accounts to protect each others interests, not that I would suggest that has ever happened....... but.And all while their full financials remain hidden in the Cayman Islands where no one can scrutinise them properly.
I don't agree with that, the fact that they knew what was already declared as related party income, makes it easier for our arguments to work because we can dismiss half of the arguments in that tweet. They don't just take a club's word for it, we have a revenue and we show where it came from and it has to add up. There's no hiding millions extra being paid into the Abaar type deals I would have thought. Everything has to be shown to be coming from somewhere and they check for that surely? What I read was, we did overpay some of those deals but they spotted that immediately in the first review and all that was settled in 2014 . City have stuck to the agreed value for those deals since then, as far as I know.
ADUG paying into Etihad would be a different matter(which I don't believe happened), but the value of Etihad deal would remain the same in the accounts. Unless I'm missing something.
And that's why we have enrolled a £20k per day lawyer.I agree with what you say the IC at least is a disgrace - and I don't think you'd find anyone - fan, official or anyone else - who would trust anyone at UEFA as far as they could throw them BUT we can't prove that AC didn't consider our submissions or that they took into account the concerns CAS expressed. As projectriver said, we have to do better to prevail.
Thanks.Apparently nothing.
It's just an agreement being signed, there's no indication it's anything to do with City.
There may be some confusion as it's called SilverLake.
Oh, my mistake.I've made my original reply clearer. I think we agree. I mean harder for UEFA not for City.
You should all stay out of Twitter.I don’t know how anyone goes on Twitter in the first place